When a Wikipedian moves content from one article to another, this is covered
under section 5: COMBINING DOCUMENTS. This requires that 'In the combination,
you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents,
forming one section Entitled "History";'.
Clearly we don't do this. However, we might to be able to claim that we combine the
history "by reference" if we state "from [[X]]". Dubious?
The only alternative would be to claim that in fact we don't need to keep a history at
all, except for text imported from third parties (like Nupedia). This would have to be
based on a fairly liberal interpretation of "if you do not want your text to be edited
mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it here".
Now, the possible requirement to keep history causes us serious problems. For
* If a third party makes a derivative work, do they need to copy the complete
Wikipedia site locally?
* If a third party makes a verbatim copy, do they need to copy the page history?
* Can we delete an article if its contents have been merged elsewhere?
* Can we move pages that have been previously referenced in a "from [[X]]" page?
* Where page histories get inadvertantly screwed up, do we need to delete the
entire article and start again?
* If I print out several copies of a Wikipedia article, do I need to print out several
copies of the page history to go along with them?
Is our "printable version" hence illegal?
* If a vandal writes misleading text in an edit summary - eg "I am the principal
author of this article", is this a problem?
* Do we need to mention the publisher (Wikimedia foundation now, Bomis
previously) in every line in the history?
* Do we need to keep page history URLs stable? If so, how can we move articles,
given that the move destroys the history?
As a result, I feel that we should seek to interpret the text "if you do not want your
text to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it here" so as to
void our requirement to keep a full history, if this is at all legally possible. However,
we should publicise this move well, and if any current or former contributor objects
then we should immediately strip Wikipedia of their contributions.
The costs of making a full and accurate history available are significant, and I would
say unreasonable for a wiki-based system. I am aware that people have interpreted
the current submission text in ways that release us from our obligation to keep a full
history, and I think we should look for ways to make that interpretation official.
-Martin "IANAL" Harper
>>Grumble...another mailing list...grumble
>Absolutely!!! Attrition is inevitable.
I succeeded to avoid it for at least one month, that
is not so bad.
But *they* got me. Terrible.
>>This is a very good point. I have brought it up
>>before. Really, if you move text from one page (or
>>from one language version to another) as part of the
>>move you should analyze the text and determine who
>the >five major contributors are and list them in the
>>summary box. How to determine who the five major
>>contributors are? Should it be via the amount of
>>contributes? Or the number of ideas? How to count
>>Perhaps an alternative is to state where the page
>>comes from that way someone should be able to work
>>back and find out who made the contribution.
>Applying any of these criteria, except for the five
>contributors, can be the type of time-consuming
>process that people tend
>>AieAieAie, I think, reading comments by Alex,
>>Ec...that it would be best that we just abandon this
>>notion of authorship.
>>It would still be a good idea to always indicate the
>>origin of a content moved from another place in the
>Comment boxes just appeared one day without much
>discussion about how to
>use them in contrast to the article's talk page.
I've >just ignored the
Tu me parles d'un temps, que les moins de 20 ans, ne
peuvent pas connai-tre. tididadidadaaaa,
Ok, I usually forget that feature as well. I thought
it was part of the initial package. When did you
arrive Ec ?
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
>This morning, I added one line (it was a
>*personal* addition, not in the original
>article by the banned user) to the
>consumerium article. That line was
>blanked by Cimon nonetheless. That means,
>whatever *I* add to the article, it is
>considered bad and blanked and reverted.
>Even if *I* Anthere, wrote that line.
Funny the text that Cimon blanked is /exactly/ the
same as the text that 142.177 submitted.
Original by 142.177:
The only difference is one small line added by you at
the end. I could see how Cimon could have missed that.
I just noticed it myself - otherwise I would have
saved your line.
But that line was not in the version I deleted:
>As I said this morning, where is the sense of
>editing these now "black" articles if what we
>add, us, good and honest editors is reverted
>without consideration ?
No - you should not be reverted without consideration.
However I seriously doubt you would have edited these
articles /at all/ if 142.177 had not created them
>I noted with interest that in your reply
>on my other mail, you said that
* when you mentionned in the comment box
>(upon my pressing request), that the
>agronomy article was authored by me and
>not by Robert or you, this is ok with
>the GNU license
Yes it is since I named the original author, you.
>* but when I mention in the comment box
>(upon no one request) that I am not the
>author, but avoid mentionning the original
>author (whose name is available in the
>deletion history) for ***your*** sake,
>this is illegal ?
Huh? If the text is by 142.177 it should be credited
to that IP. The deletion history /cannot/ be read by
anybody but Admins. Thus it is useless for author
credit. However, whether or not we should host that
text is a different matter.
>Because to my opinion, banning does not
>imply blind deletion.
That is a valid opinion.
>Netesq reverted these two edits back and
>engaged in discussion with 142.
>Discussion, much more than my poor line
>asking that 142 be nicer with you.
>But this is just further staking the deck
>on *me* : I communicated (1 line !) with a
>banned user. I am said involved, while
>obviously no one else is.
User talk pages brings up touchy issues. In those
cases my rule of thumb is to revert the edit but not
to re-revert if the user resurrects the banned user's
edit. I don't like it but as I said user pages are a
bit more of a special case.
>Mav. I am not *aiding* him. It would
>be nice that you stop placing people
>in a black and white state : the ones
>who pity you and inforce the banning,
>versus the ones who don't care and
>help the banned users.
I don't need your pity or anyone's else's. Americans
at least don't think that being pitied is a good
thing. It is in fact a bit insulting to say that you
>There is not ONE technique to enforce
>a ban. There are a collection of options
>to help exclude someone from a community.
Re-creating the exact article text the banned user
wrote, as you did, is not one of those techniques. It
is a violation of the ban order (and has other
problems which I already explained).
>Curiously, you chose to attack me, and
>request my unsysoping because I was
>following one of the alternative techniques,
>that others are following as well.
Again -- STOP PRETENDING THAT I REQUESTED TO DE-SYSOP
YOU!!! I did no such thing (stating that I was going
to do so on your talk page is NOT a request for
de-sysoping, but a warning that I planned to. I
changed my mind for reasons already stated, however).
>I precisely question the "disregard for policy".
>No policy was ever written on the matter on meta.
Again Jimbo said he was banned /everywhere/. However
you seem to be talking about techniques and I am
talking about the ban itself. I think we have not been
communicating. In fact I am open to discussions on
hard ban techniques. This is the first time I recall
you talking about techniques though. So you can
understand my frustration at seeing you re-create the
exact article I deleted. It looked to me like you were
thumbing your nose to the ban.
>However, even if meta is basically currently
>following en policy (which is perhaps fine
>for the moment), I repeat that some en users
>are also restoring some articles, just as I
>did, so why should I be attacked on doing
>what other people also think is proper ?
Sorry, but I do have a life outside of Wikipedia so I
can't argue with everybody who does things I don't
like. You just happened to be the person to set me off
when I had some time to respond. This seems to happen
more with you than with other people -- sorry about
that. That just reflects the fact that our
I like you and greatly respect you but sometimes you
really irritate me - moreso than your actions probably
>It appears that the attack on RK made all
>the sourness of your case go up again. And
>that because of the attack on another person,
>you are all angry and shaken again on your
>own case. Why did not you call the police
>then, when you were attacked, rather than now ?
Slow boiling. It took reading all his threats together
to prompt me to do so. I am also a very forgiving
person and didn't want to make trouble for him hoping
that he would just go away. Well he hasn't gone away
and is still doing the same things which got him
banned in the first place. There is only so much a
person can take.
>What about, if one finds an article ok
>(**only** in this case of course), to
>blank it, perhaps even to orphan it, to
>put it aside for a while, perhaps to
>move it in a user space, and perhaps to
>recreate it by any means you might think
>acceptable later, with modifications ?
Yes, we can discuss this since it deals with hard ban
techniques and not whether or not the ban applies to
meta (which of course it does). Let's do so on the RfD
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Can you please reactivate external pictures for "user", "talk" and "meta"
I fully agree the deactivation of external pictures for articles, but it was
very useful especially for talk pages to show a picture and discuss it. The
fact only local pictures can be rendering stimulate people to copy non
encyclopaedic pictures on the servers. This is a problem for me.
If you don't reactivate external pictures, please give the reason.
Grumble...another mailing list...grumble
>This is a very good point. I have brought it up
>before. Really, if you move text from one page (or
>from one language version to another) as part of the
>move you should analyze the text and determine who
the >five major contributors are and list them in the
>summary box. How to determine who the five major
>contributors are? Should it be via the amount of
>contributes? Or the number of ideas? How to count
>Perhaps an alternative is to state where the page
>comes from that way someone should be able to work
>back and find out who made the contribution.
AieAieAie, I think, reading comments by Alex, Martin,
Ec...that it would be best that we just abandon this
notion of authorship.
It would still be a good idea to always indicate the
origin of a content moved from another place in the
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> Anthere wrote:
> >I encourage editors to consider the three
> >articles I have been restoring. These
> >three have any right to be on meta. The
> >content of these is uncontroversial.
> Article quality is irrelevant because they should
> have been created to begin with. However, if you had
> created them independent of any action by 142.177
> the existence of the articles would be fine. Since
> you did was copy /exactly/ what 142.177 wrote Cimon
> Avaro has blanked them. If somebody wants to create
> their own unique content about those subjects, then
> so. But re-creating the exact text by a hard banned
> user is subverting that ban.
This morning, I added one line (it was a *personal*
addition, not in the original article by the banned
user) to the consumerium article. That line was
blanked by Cimon nonetheless. That means, whatever *I*
add to the article, it is considered bad and blanked
and reverted. Even if *I* Anthere, wrote that line.
> >It could be edited by anyone, and I am
> >ready to put any effort necessary in
> >those to modify them, as I indicated to Mav,
> They are a clean slate now. Go ahead. However we
> should not do this too often since it allows 142.177
> to direct our attention to certain topics. Thus also
> subverting the ban.
I put MY line back. That line alone looks very stupid.
Look by yourself
If it is reverted *again*, how do you plan proving
that articles touched by banned users are freely
As I said this morning, where is the sense of editing
these now "black" articles if what we add, us, good
and honest editors is reverted without consideration ?
> >provided that they are not deleted again,
> >even when I recreate them under my name.
> The text in these particular articles is minimal.
> However if you did that for larger ones then you
> be in violation of the GNU FDL (since you would deny
> 142.177 credit).
I noted with interest that in your reply on my other
mail, you said that
* when you mentionned in the comment box (upon my
pressing request), that the agronomy article was
authored by me and not by Robert or you, this is ok
with the GNU license
* but when I mention in the comment box (upon no one
request) that I am not the author, but avoid
mentionning the original author (whose name is
available in the deletion history) for ***your***
sake, this is illegal ?
> >I do not feel ready to put some work on articles
> >that are being deleted immediately after. I fear
> >that instant deletion of these articles as now
> >practiced, under any editors name, even trusted
> >ones, is likely to slow down discussion and
> >evolution of meta.
> No it won't. It will just take control of meta's
> content away from 142.177 (who is, BTW, meta's
> one 'contributor') and give it to the wider
Yes, it will. Even my poor edition was removed, and I
dare not even put the external link to the project.
> >It is not a good idea that any topic touched
> >by a banned user, becomes de facto a topic
> >which must not be mentionned any more.
> What? I already explained on your talk page that
> is not the case. There is nothing stopping you from
> writing on topics that a banned user 'touches'! Just
> don't recreate the banned users exact (or even
> substantial) edits and try hard not to be prompted
> edit a subject just because the banned user brought
> to your attention. This denies the banned user
> influence over our content and the direction of
I am all ready to wait one full month before editing
any of these articles; Problem is that after one
month, the article is long gone.
If proper articles are not deleted, I will gladly
respect a certain time before editing them if that
> >I entirely recognise and accept the decision
> >over the banning of 142.
> Then why are you recreating his edits!
Because to my opinion, banning does not imply blind
> /not/ what you have been doing: you have been
> reverting the deletion of the text that 142.177 has
> written and you have also been responding to his
> posts. That is very different than just happening to
> write in the same areas. Your involvement is direct
> and with the banned user.
In the past three days, Cimon has been consistantly
reverting edits by 142. This is ok by me. Everyone is
free to look or not to look at them. I do not see a
Among the edits Cimon reverted, two were written on
Netesq talk page
Netesq reverted these two edits back and engaged in
discussion with 142.
Discussion, much more than my poor line asking that
142 be nicer with you.
But this is just further staking the deck on *me* : I
communicated (1 line !) with a banned user. I am said
involved, while obviously no one else is.
Seriously Mav !
> >If this goes to this, preventing regular users to
> >edit topics because of their smell, where is
> >Wikipedia going ?
> I think I have already proven that this is a weak
> argument, if not a strawman.
what about my line on consumerium ?
Okay, just kidding. You are right of course :-)
> >The rules should not be decided by Mav,
> Since when have I been deciding the rules in this
> regard? I was acting on a decision authorized by
> and in response to a request by another user to
> immediately delete the articles in question. You
> acting on your own authority. So who is making up
Right now ? You. Clearly. When two people are trying
to discuss together, and one is requesting unsysoping
of the other one, and accusing her of about every bad
action he can figure out (such as her acting in
illegality as regards gfdl), that is *intentionally*
trying to remove any legitimacy in her participating
to setting the rules
Leaving you alone.
Btw, we two are not the only sysops on meta. I did not
notice the other sysops were jumping on the delete
button each time they saw 142.
Even more, others have been deleting some 142 edits,
to restore them under their names, in order to remove
unnice comments to you.
So, I ask again, why the attack on *me* ? Am I so
scary ?? Why ???
>>Perhaps you have not read this email:
Given that you paste it in every mail, it would be
hard to miss it :-)
>>Just like the english main page, not editable
>>by most users. Just like the wikimedia guide,
>>just you editing it, and calling other attempts
>What? Please stop the personal attacks and lies. In
>addition to myself these other users have also edited
>the user's guide: Patrick, Brion, Nanobug, Hashar,
>Kat, Mintguy, Archivist, and MyRedDice. And that is
>just from the first several pages of the guide! I
>not taken issue with their edits. What I do take
>with is the creation of a competing MediaWiki
>documentation project instead of simply adding to the
>current one. However I think the person doing this
>I have reached an understanding.
Yes ? I am glad to hear that. Indeed, the
understanding must have been clear :
So, yours is the old manual. Hum...
And of course, no one *ever* complained about the fact
you basically own the english main page ? Apologies, I
must have been inventing this fact :-)
>>Mav, I recognise you are doing a great job,
>>and you have been hurt by that user, and
>>that 142 is indeed banned;
>Then why are you aiding and abetting him in the
>subversion of the ban?
Mav. I am not *aiding* him.
It would be nice that you stop placing people in a
black and white state : the ones who pity you and
inforce the banning, versus the ones who don't care
and help the banned users.
There are other alternatives. For example, I already
told you I was sorry for you, and really can feel the
unhappiness this whole story is causing to you.
However, one can feel sorry, recognise the ban, but
not follow your technique to inforce a ban.
There is not ONE technique to enforce a ban. There are
a collection of options to help exclude someone from a
Perhaps everyone just naturally accept there is a ban.
But not everyone choose to follow the same techniques
as regards this ban.
On en, users have chosen different paths. Some choose
to delete immediately, without even taking into
consideration other people edited the page afterwards
Other users just close the eyes and pretend they have
Other users actively seek to save the good articles,
usually by kidnapping them, keeping them aside for a
while, and then recreating them under other author
names, with some refactoring.
These three techniques are tolerated on en.
Curiously, you chose to attack me, and request my
unsysoping because I was following one of the
alternative techniques, that others are following as
When I suggest that we talk about this, you completely
evade the issue, and refuse to answer to me, limiting
yourself to appeal to authority and to repeat that the
only way is immediate deletion, and claiming it is the
only technique practiced, while obviously it is not.
Then you ask for unsysoping me, me alone, for doing
things that others are doing as well.
Sadly, you are just attacking the one that appears the
>>what I have troubles accepting is that you
>>decide the way we should enforce the ban,
>>you remove my comments on talk pages, you
>>delete articles I created under my name,
>>assuming if need there is their authorship,
>>and finally, that you try to break the only
>>opposition to your decisions on meta by
>>calling for unsysoping people.
>Perhaps you have not read my first email:
>Where in that email have I called for de-sysoping
You are assuming that I said you wrote that in the
email, but it is not; it was on my talk page on meta
this is where you mention that you are going to
strongly advocate me being unsysoped
And this is where you confirm that you did ask for my
>I did consider doing that but then I realized
>that it really wasn't an abuse of sysop power that
>were doing, but a basic disregard for policy.
I am sure glad you changed your mind.
I precisely question the "disregard for policy". No
policy was ever written on the matter on meta.
So, everyone assume it is the english policy, which I
regret, as every wikipedia is also setting up personal
policy, which might be different from the en one.
There is no reason why meta should endorse the en one.
However, even if meta is basically currently following
en policy (which is perhaps fine for the moment), I
repeat that some en users are also restoring some
articles, just as I did, so why should I be attacked
on doing what other people also think is proper ?
>recreated your edits (a one line response to 142.177)
>and removed just what 142.177 wrote. Yet you reverted
No, two times, you removed my comments from the page.
Two times you removed comments that were never done by
The first line was certainly not a response, that was
gently asking 142 to be nicer to you. My poor attempt
to cool things down didnot deserve censorship.
The second paragraph that you censored, was something
I wrote several days ago. It had nothing to do with
the current issue. You removed it blindly anyway.
>>So Mav, there is a point there. I explained
>>in length on meta why I was restoring these
>And I explained in length why I deleted them and
>reverted 142.177's edits.
So we discuss, and when we do not agree, you ask for
>>I also remind you that other users on en are
>>also doing this, and that it has suggested
>>that in case this is done, the articles should
>>be recreated under another person name.
>Again that is subverting the ban and is a violation
>the GNU FDL. Just because others are doing it too
>not make it right.
I do not believe it is a violation of the GNU FDL.
This is nicely made up to suit the situation. "making
it right" is a personal opinion. And that does not
justify jumping on Anthere, just because you think
you can jump on me, while it would perhaps less
confortable to jump on others (I hope I am not
claiming to be fat here, though I am far from skinny
>>In any place, there should be balance. The
>>fact you delete them is fine with me; the
>>fact you refuse to accept that other people
>>have different opinions on how meta should
>>work is just plain not wiki.
>It is also highly insulting and in fact disgusting
>that you are helping a person who stated that my
>murder would be justified because I am being a
Stop the appeal for pity on simplification of the
issue, Mav, you are taking it far too personally.
I have a question btw.
Your disagreement with 142 is from ... I do not
remember...perhaps a year ago (say). At that time, you
were naturally and quite understandebly shaken.
After a few months, you decided that though the ban
was still in place, you would tolerate 142 edits,
provided that he behaved. That is...somehow, even if
you could not forget, not really forgive, there was a
good step in the direction of forgiveness though, and
I told you how happy that made me. I was real glad you
were going over that stress.
Later, there was the attack on RK. Not on you again;
just on RK. And following this attack on RK, you
decided to enforce the ban again.
It appears that the attack on RK made all the sourness
of your case go up again. And that because of the
attack on another person, you are all angry and shaken
again on your own case. Why did not you call the
police then, when you were attacked, rather than now ?
"There are very few things you will regret more in
your life than defending your little clique of friends
here, Daniel Mayer. What they are doing is wrong,
racist, illegal, immoral and stupid. You seemed to
realize this for a while, but, you have stepped back
in, so, you deserve what you get."
Yes, this is very unnice.
It is very unlike you who are very open.
>On top of this he also used my real name in a very
>slanderous and false statement and if believed by my
>employer could get me fired. That diff has since been
>deleted from the database thanks to Brion.
Shall I dare to say ?
I also abandonned any attempt to contact professionals
to talk about Gaia matters as I had thought of doing
at some point. Too afraid of them seeing what was in
the discussion page. Too afraid of them being said
nasty things, that would have covered Wikipedia image
with opprobe. And that is why, even if one day I give
my real name, I will not change my contribution from
my pseudo to my real name. I also can't really figure
my own boss finding some of the emails adressed to me
and widely available on the net.
This is irrelevant to the current personal matter, but
just to refocus things on other personal matters :-)
>Do I deserve that Anthere? By subverting the ban you
>are implicitly saying that what 142.177 wrote above
>OK since in effect you are directly opposing the ban
>as if it did not have merit. In fact I'm going to
>inform the cops about 142.177 (I've never read all
>threats in quick order before - it creeps me out).
No, you do not deserve these comments.
No, what he said is not ok, and I do not support it.
I really hope we can work a way out of this Mav.
What about, if one finds an article ok (**only** in
this case of course), to blank it, perhaps even to
orphan it, to put it aside for a while, perhaps to
move it in a user space, and perhaps to recreate it by
any means you might think acceptable later, with
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
>For a very long time I've advocated making it
>explicit that the only authorship credit we
>should require downstream is "Wikipedia
>contributors" to avoid any bothersome
>bullying or complaints such as what
>Maverick is engaging in right now.
What? I just mentioned as a small part of my argument
that deleting an article and then posting /exactly/
the same text under a different user name and /not/
stating who wrote that text is a violation of the
author requirement of the GNU FDL and thus opens us to
potential litigation from the person who is not being
credited. This person has already stated that he hates
"Jimbo and his friends" and has called for "Wikipeida
regime change in 2004." So how am I being a bully by
pointing out something that could be used by such a
person as a basis to harm Wikipedia?
>But I'll try to believe that his actions
>are merited by his good-intentioned but
>unnecessary efforts to follow the GFDL on
>behalf of 142 and not based on a goal of
>censoring anything written by 142.
It is not a matter of me censoring anything. He has
already been hard banned so everything he writes is in
violation of that ban and should be removed from the
top edits of articles. Not doing so invalidates the
ban and implicitly gives permission to everyone that
the activity that the user was banned for is at worst
OK and at best not something we try to stop.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
In response to continual nagging, I've set up an original-sources wiki
so people will stop dumping stuff in ps.wikipedia.org, which is
supposed to be for the Pashto-language Wikipedia.
http://sources.wikipedia.org/ now contains a basic wiki for dumping
source documents into. Final domain name, title, logo, and magic
sources-specific special features (like annotations) are a matter for
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Since we are on legal matters, I would like that
enlightement is brought to me on a GFDL license point
: the one that is about authorship :-)
Mav claims I am illegally removing the credit for text
I did not write myself.
I answered that I mentionned in the comment box that I
was not the original author, hence not doing anything
illegal and definitly not stealing anyone else job.
Mav answers : Wrong. Read the author credit areas of
the GNU Free Documentation License.
So my question is : if none of us has the right to
attribute to himself the credit of something written
by someone else, what happen to all the major amount
of text that is regularly clipped from one article,
and moved to another page by someone who is not the
original author of the text ? How does the licence
handle that ? If the moved text contains legal issues,
who is said liable, the lost original author, or the
one who took the responsability of the move and who is
consequently the owner of the edit?
And is commenting in the comment box that we are not
the original author of the edit not enough to insure
legal rights of authorship are respected ? What are we
supposed to do when moving someone else work ? Is
commenting enough ? Or not ? Should we leave a message
in the talk page ?
Depending on the answers provided (I really understand
little of the gfdl matters :-))
I would like also to have an old edit of mine restored
as *mine*, as I was the main author of it.
It is there
The edits credited to Maveric and Robert Merkel are
mine entirely. It was my fifth edit as Anthere. And my
additions still constitute very much the core of the
current article. It was a welcome present to the
newbie Anthere that it was credited to someone else.
Not to be a pain either, but I would like as well,
that the creation of the article "Trade war over
genetically modified food" credited to Graft, be
credited to me, as the content was my work (Graft just
excised it from "genetically modified food" that I had
made a few days before) and as most of the article is
still essentially my work.
It is here
* either legal issues are used to attack other
wikipedians in dishonest ways, and if my work being
credited to other people is making these edits
illegal, then I really would like that these credits
taken by other people be given back to me, to respect
the license. I would not like that the license is not
respected :-) In this case, any major move from one
article to another should also mention clearly all the
main authors of the piece moved.
* or we admit that we are together building an
encyclopedia, that ownership is secondary in our
building process, and that what is important is the
content, not the author. I would very much prefer that
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now