User talk:Beve/Archive2008

Lions / Audley Freed

Hey, thanks for making me strengthen the article. I took it for granted that he played on the album, since his picture is in the insert. Anything else you think Lions (album) needs before I nominate it for Good article status? —Zeagler (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I see you've received a copyediting award; if you find anything in the article that could be worded better, please go ahead and change it. —Zeagler (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Beve, would you be willing, as one of the few serious editors here with an interest in The Black Crowes, to review Lions (album) at its FAC page here? I only have one 'support' after nearly two weeks (no 'oppose', though). I'd appreciate it. —Zeagler (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. The article was promoted today! —Zeagler (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Eleven

Good call on removing grunge from the Eleven page. I saw that the other day and was wondering what grunge should be changed to but couldn't think of anything. Glad someone had the answer. Hondo77 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		A award for your edits of fixing grammer on pages. Particulary ones on Hull City A.F.C. Kits ROOSTER (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fraizer Campbell

How is that quote biographically relevant? Most players enjoy their time on loan, or at least they say they do. Personally, it seems to me that you're just using this as an opportunity to big up Hull City. – PeeJay 15:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Do they? "Best move of my career" is a little stronger than "enjoyed" anyhow. Why don't we just say "he went on loan to Hull City and scored some goals" then? The rest of the detail is just irrelevant. Beve (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If the quote was indicating that Campbell was considering a permanent move to Hull, then perhaps it would be relevant, but all it says is that he's proud of how the team did and that he made a good decision by going there on loan. If we included similar quotes on other players' articles, some of them would end up being massive, and would include so many quotes that the article might as well be an autobiography. – PeeJay 15:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the article too long? Does it contain so many quotes that it might well be an autobiography? I'd say this loan move has worked out better than ninety-odd percent do, and it's well worth mentioning. I know Hull City want to make the move permanent, and this is easily sourced, I'll add it in, because I think this is worth mentioning too. May or may not be able to find something from Campbell himself on the matter. In any case, I'd prefer discussion before deletion. Beve (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This will make the article longer though... Beve (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I think the tone of the last couple of paragraphs needs addressing, as it now sounds like a newspaper or magazine story, rather than an encyclopaedic article. – PeeJay 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Midfielder

How can i change it all back to how i did it earlier mate? would really appreciate any help as it took me ages and it sounded far better than whats there currently. Half doesn't even make sense with the rest at the moment, and it makes you aware that things can/do happen but then gives no indication how/why/when/where etc. I agree 100% about Beckham as he has never been a winger in his life, as he has always been a right midfielder. This is crazy this place and people seem to be spoilt or something so are changing things to how they've wrote it, when as you can see and have said with Beckham mate, it's wrong/misleading and/or simply not enough, as there is almost endless possibilities, at least to what's there now anyway. Is there no way to find a better written, more detailed page from the old and retrieve them? it doesn't need to be mine as somebody could even do it again, as it just needs improving. A lot though. And is there no way for anybody to stop it getting changed when it is sounding good/better? especially to whats there now. sorry if you think i'm saying it's you as that's not the case mate, i just don't know were to go or who to see about anything. Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.114.86 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response mate and understanding. I do realise it's for everybody though mate it just seems to be the same people changing it back when at times it sounds far better and sometimes even more simple, as most of it is really. Attacking midfielders can play just about anywhere in an advanced position, it's a forward that plays in the hole 99% of the time(when it's a striker obviously) defensive midfielders can play anywhere in a flat 4 4 2 or anywhere in between the defense/midfield, or sometimes even a bit further up to stop play makers etc(although not so often), attacking midfielders can also be deeper and advance less, like Tim Cahill and so needs different skills, and then there is the top not even mentioning right or left midfielders plus saying a team can't create without help from the midfield and saying outstanding midfielders are complete midfielders or all-round midfielders, as any midfielder can be outstanding, or defender, keeper, striker and even a super sub. These are all really obvious things that take place or are wrong, and there is even worse, this is all i can remember at the moment though lol. Again mate i don't want to sound like i'm getting on anybody's case at all, as the people changing it could have changed it from worse so don't realise. But if it takes a while to do then surely it should be left until a few people can see it and maybe say if it makes sense in an easy enough way? as like you have said, everybody should be able to contribute. There is just no small way you can get it all in really, because of all them possibilities, so it needs to be a decent size. It is always meant to be as simple as possible but when things are not even mentioned or wrong, it should be changed a.s.a.p. because a lot of people use it for all kinds of purposes(not necessarily football obviously, but the whole site) and all the different tactics, formations, player capabilities/roles etc, make it important to state it all, as this should be and probably is a very popular part. Thanks, Bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.114.86 (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if deleting this earlier was any problem mate as i didn't know i wasn't allowed and i thought it would not be a problem, so sorry if it is. I have just got a warning for it i think for nonconstructive editing lol, even though i was only trying to smarten it back up. Anyway thanks for the help and again, sorry if any harm has been done. --90.203.114.86 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Geovanni

Hi I saw you reverted one of my edits and stated that the source said pending medical. Source was [1] and did not state that. I appriciate that you were reverting large amounts of speculation during the transfer window, however I tend to assume good faith from editors who are named and have a good track record of edits if they state the source (which I did, but didn't link to) then at least question them before reverting their edits. Paul  Bradbury 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The BBC source did say pending medical when originally published on Friday 4th. When I reverted your edit at 12:57 today it still said the same; it was updated at 13:03. However I then checked the Hull City OWS and saw that the transfer had gone through and 'undid' my edit. Regards Beve (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LCD vs LED

The big screen at KC is an LED screen not an LCD screen. LCD screeens are the type you have on your desk. The screen is a 24mm digiLED display, installed by displayLED screens in October 2007. JLansdowne (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference on the Official Website says LCD: [2] Of course, they may have got it wrong. Do you have an alternative source in order to change it to LED? It needs to be verifiable per WP:VERIFY - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Beve (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

see http://www.displayled.com/news.php?pg=story&id=82 for a verifiable source. JLansdowne (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you added a reference here to LED, should we remove the old reference for LCD now as there is a conflict or just add a note on the old reference to indicate the problem? Keith D (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wes Brown

Yes he is, he started the last game for England and for Man U [3] [4]. --Jimbo^[online] 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

First choice. He's won more than Abidal & Daniel Alves --Jimbo^[online] 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair play. Not too sure, but I'd back him in there, I've never removed him. Personally I don't see why Metzelder, Cordoba and Márquez are named amongst the World's best centre-backs. --Jimbo^[online] 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeh to be honest, I don't like the whole listing of players as it is subjective. --Jimbo^[online] 20:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

You've claimed Robbo24 is POV-pushing, citing the source he added as evidence. I have checked the source and it does indeed say he was bankrolled by McLaren - Am I missing something? (I may very well be) Porterjoh (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

They're POV edits - albeit toned down somewhat from his previous: [5]. "Bank-rolled" (as opposed to say "funded") is being used as a negative - see earlier edit where it replaced "signed" altogether. Since he didn't get away with that, he's finding a way to get it in somehow: [6]. In addition he is now using misleading edit summaries. Beve (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's grammatically incorrect:

"he was signed and bankrolled by McLaren and Mercedes-Benz to their Young Driver Support Programme"

-->

"he was (signed and) bankrolled by McLaren and Mercedes-Benz to their Young Driver Support Programme"

-->

"he was bankrolled by McLaren and Mercedes-Benz to their Young Driver Support Programme" - makes no sense! Beve (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough pal - sorry for wasting your time :) Porterjoh (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this guy's edit history, the majority of it seems to be POV or even just pure vandalism, eg: [7] [8] [9] [10] Beve (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, I was starting to despair. It is a pity he only got a 24h block really, it was pretty clear that it was not going to be preventative after he performed 7 reverts. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And he is back to the bring of 3RR. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

With one exception (that I can see), this is a vandalism-only account. He's simply playing the system here and trying to waste our time. Fortunately, I've got a lot of time to waste. And I never sleep. Beve (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Subsidized housing

Hi. I see you took out the POV material by anon editor 68.40.143.123 from the Subsidized housing article. I totally agree with you and it's been taken out before. He put them right back in after you undid it and I had to roll back the article to a previous state. To me, his addition was POV, unsourced, and rambling. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Steve. I am slightly expecting it will creep in again but hope it doesn't. Well, thanks for your help. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, User:68.40.143.123 put that vandalism material back into the Subsidized housing article. How can it be stopped ? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. The 3RR. I don't have time to chase the article unfortunately. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You and your friend are quite the economists....I give up...enjoy the subsidized housing page in the state you have left it. It is not vandalism or POV....Your deletions are vandalism and POV by the way....cheers and good bye...you win, but the readers have ultimately lost! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.143.123 (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Asking for neutrality is not POV. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Beve (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"WHATEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.143.123 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That User:68.40.143.123 came back immediately after the protection expired and started his vandalising again. It's an impossible situation. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good evening....I am not on the offensive. I merely want the truth out there about supply and demand. Your zealous pursuit of deleting my posts and assumption of malice is priceless. Think about it for a moment, there is only so much housing... when you give some people some money, the price will increase via supply and demand....those without the subsidy, no matter how much money they have, are at a disadvantage....why do you consider that vandalism...it is simple truth! And the truth, no matter how politically charged it is....is not POV! And yes...by deleting the truth in honor of some viewpoint YOU have...is uncivil, POV, a personal attack, and just darn wrong! Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.143.123 (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. A personal attack would be if I called you a belligerent tosspot. Removing POV is not POV. Nor is it uncivil. Beve (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.143.123 (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to disagree, but you're wrong. Beve (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No i'm not wrong. TANSTAAFL with subsidies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.143.123 (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, there's no way you can call the reversion of your edit a personal attack unless you believe that:

(a) I know who you are,

(b) I singled out your edit,

and

(c) I reverted it because you were the editor, not because it was a bad edit.

None of the above things are true, and if you believe they are I'm afraid it's simply paranoia.

I'm not inclined to waste any more time on this. Beve (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

THEN DON'T SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THIS. TANSTAAFL. YMMV. THIS IS NOT POV. YOU ARE AND WERE WRONG. I WAS RIGHT. HAVE A NICE DAY. GET A CLUE.

Hull City Graph

Hi Beve, I think the last time Hull City were in Tier 4 was 1983 (The Football League 1982-83#Fourth Division). Which is just outside the limits of my graph. I have the data to make another one showing their complete record from 1906.... and maybe move the graph of their recent performance back to 1980? What do you think?--Payo (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Let me check my records and re-do the graph. --Payo (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks better! Thanks for your help. Remember, pride comes before a fall! ;-) --Payo (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

corrected version

Bicycle Kick

Good person,

Thank you for your recent contributions to the bicycle kick article. I was wondering if you could give some more advise on how to improve the bicycle kick article. Currently, I find myself in a rather silly debate with users "English peasant" and "Selecciones de la Vida," but that is leading to nowhere. They both constantly accuse me of holding a "minority position" and with that they try to make it seem as if everything I write or post in the "Peruvian claim" section is wrong. Yet, they give little reasoning for their statements and in the end they result to using "consensus" as a means of they getting the "win" and me "losing" because I have the "minority position."

Basically, if you could please help in the article by providing more constructive criticism, such as your recent comments, I would greatly appreciate it. Contrary to what these other users might say, I am very willing to work out a reasonable solution to the problem. I've been working with the "Bicycle Kick" article for quite some time now, and I've greatly expanded it by fixing the opening, including the Brazilian and Italian claims, expanding the Peruvian claim, providing a series of reliable sources for these many things, and drawing a couple of pictures for said section. In terms of what you wrote in the discussion page, I would like to point out that the "Peruvian Claim" section was already shortened as a result of previous edits done by users "Selecciones de la Vida," "English Peasant," "Mariano," and myself. The "problem" at this point is that they wish to further shorten it because they believe that the section should be about the same size as the other sections in the article. My stance is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "paper encyclopedia" (which is one of the website's policies), and that therefore just as long as the information in the "Peruvian Claim" section relates to the bicycle kick, Callao (the city in which the Peruvian claim revolves), and the early introduction of football in Peru, there should be no more deletion. Moreover, the sources I have provided for the article are factual and reliable. Once again, thank you for your comments and for taking the time to read this message.--MarshalN20 (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. Concerning the overall length, I would be in favor of expanding the other sections with more detail. By which I mean, if we can provide more factual details that are properly sourced and related to the bicycle kick invention, then why should we have to delete such things or simply ignore their existance? Sure, I completely understand that "Undue Weight" policy, but what just bothered me back in the article was that the other users simply shortened the article without making an actual good summary of the information. For instance, they would delete entire paragraphs and claim that by doing such they were making the information better.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I read in the Wiki:UNDUE section, it came to me that another way to fix this problem would be to create a page solely for the "Peruvian Proposal of Invention of the Bicycle Kick" (or under some other title related to the bicycle kick). In such a page the whole argument would be laid out, with no original research (of course), but only with valid sources and statements. Meanwhile, the actual "Bicycle Kick" article would only keep a summary of such an information (hence "balancing" the article) and in case the reader wants to learn more about that claim they can go into the other page that further explains the idea. Similarly, for the other "claims" in the article, Wikipedists could also create individual pages that are more specific in that particular topic. Basically, what I mean to state is that the individual "Attributions of Invention" hold enough information to sustain their own articles. This would certainly help in making the article focused solely on the move and not in the "Attributions of Invention." Since you seem to be a person of fair views and knowledge, I would like to know what you think.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggested this idea into the FOOTY page as you recommended, but at the end worked with User: GiantSnowman in order to shorten the "Peruvian Claim" section and improved the article. Yet, User: Selecciones de la Vida got into the article and accused me of POV, deleted information, and stated that I should not edit things in the article. Yet, I haven't done any "bad edits" into the article. I've only been trying to improve it, and I've discussed things with neutral editors with knowledge on these things (including you as one of them, of course) as to how the article could be improved. Could you please help me out? Thanks in advance.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to state that MarshalN20 knows that discussions are currently being done in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Consensus is necessary for any perceived improvements, especially when regarding the history of edits within the Bicycle kick article from various editors including both him and myself. I would also like to point the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts that has not yet been answered or resolved by an admin, thanks Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Both User: Beve and User: GiantSnowman are from the FOOTY article page. I hope you see this, Beve, as a proof as to how this user "Selecciones de la Vida" is constantly trying to get me in trouble and keeps on threatening me with the "wikiquette alerts."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a fact not a threat that a user reported you for incivility, which still continues on your part. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You continue attacking me.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you arguing on my talk page? Can you take it somewhere else please. Beve (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Liam Cooper speedy deletion

Heya dude, he needs to have played a league game, I'll go add that to the page (actually after checking, I already did). Doberman Pharaoh (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

HCAFC Vice-captains?

Hi Beve,

I thought I'd solicit your opinion on this recent change to the Hull City AFC article. I watch the article for vandalism and blatant unsourced material, but I'm not sure about this change. Doesn't seem to be vandalism, but when I went to the club's OWS to verify, I didn't see anything. Do you know anything about this vice-captaincy for Dawson and Boateng? Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there are official vice-captains. Boateng wore the armband against Man U, when Ashbee was suspended. Dawson is the second longest-serving player. So it kind of makes sense, but perhaps it should require a source? Beve (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

台北歐洲學校

Hi,

You marked 台北歐洲學校 as existing on another wikimedia project. Google isn't much help, could you give me a link so I can remove it? Thanks. --fvw* 03:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - I used {{db-notenglish}} without realising exactly what it meant. Beve (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

LVCVA

Hey, thanks for reverting that vandalism on the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. It looks like someoen from the LVCVA or R&R parterns is resorting to blanking any information they don't like. The one local Wiki admin (VegasWikian) doesn't appear to be interested in helping because his personal opinion is that the newspaper articles are POV attacks against the LVCVA for some reason (And thus disqualify the sources as unencyclopedic). How do we get this to arbitration (and get some other administrators over to help improve the article)? (Kdr81 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Ummm... sorry, don't know. Was just patrolling recent changes and saw unexplained content removal, so reverted. Beve (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Scout (association football)

Hi Beve, I'm in the process of writing a new article on scouting Scout (association football) which has not been written yet by anybody else to my knowledge. Hoping for your input, please, and hopefully to integrate it with the rest of the football wiki. Veinofstars (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I spotted the article, and that it was rapidly expanding. I'm not really much of a creator on Wikipedia, but I can certainly have a proofread of it for you. The initial comments I would make are:

• There's already a Scout (sport) article, and some people might think there is no need for a separate one for (real) football and it should be merged. But if the article is long enough and well-sourced, this shouldn't be an issue. Consider putting the {{underconstruction}} or {{inuse}} template on it in the meantime.
• There aren't many internal links in the article.
• There don't seem to be any pages that link to the article.
  • When it's ready, you could add a template (not sure which one) into the Scout (sport) article in the "Association football" section that links back to the new, more specialised article.
  • Is scouting mentioned in any other articles, eg: club articles?
  • Are there any particularly famous scouts that have articles of their own? There are a few listed in the existing Scout (sport) article. (as a follow up to that, if there are loads, would it be worth having an "Association football scouts" category?)
  • You may end up having to search Wikipedia for "scout" and ignore loads of irrelevant, non-football articles!
• It could probably do with more sources/references in the opening section and definitely in the "Evaluating players" section.
• It could do to be in more categories (and if I knew which ones I'd suggest them).
• I can see a couple of grammar mistakes (which I'll fix) and apparent contradictions/confusions in there, which I'll try to reword (and I hope you'll be happy with the result).

When you're ready, it's probably a good idea to let the folks at WikiProject Football know you have created the article, on the project's talk page, and ask them to review/contribute. Be prepared for them to make constructive criticism and changes to the article! - but it will be in a friendly way. And please consider officially joining the project.

Good luck! Cheers, Beve (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple more points on references: they should be positioned immediately after a fullstop or comma, no space inbetween. And if a reference is used more than once in an article, there's no need to repeat the full reference multiple times; you can give the reference a name instead (see my edit on the article to see how). Beve (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I may have got a bit carried away. I hope you don't think I've butchered it too much! Beve (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Beve, I'm happy, your edits were great. In fact, please feel free to edit and improve as you wish, this is a wiki after all. To answer some of your questions in no particular order:

• Mentioned in other articles: I did do a number of checks and have turned up nothing.
• Sourcing is difficult. I'm sure you know that a lot of what I write is informed by Football Manager, which might not sound very encyclopedic but it is very well regarded and it does have the input of many of the game's experts. I personally have no problem with using a video game as a source, but granted, with a choice I'd rather have a print article or a book.

• What I can do is find a number of real scouting reports and ref to them instead, I think this is doable.

• I'll have to learn that referencing part.
• Thanks a lot for your help, you've been great.

Veinofstars (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)