User talk:CJ/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:CJ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Soccer

Hi Cyberjunkie, Do you know where we state that Soccer is preferred for Australian articles? I tried to find it earlier today so I could revert the Suncorp Stadium change that you reverted. The Soccer / Football thing seems to come up every so often. Thanks Rimmeraj 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not preferred. But I'll often revert stylistic changes made on the basis of personal preference. You may find Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and the debate on its talk page enlightening. Thanks,--cj | talk 11:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Afferbeck Lauder

I have reverted your high handed and unecessary merge. What was the purpose of this? Afferbeck Lauder was a eperate entity. Murdoch never really admitted authorship so far as I know. Go and do something useful like arguing about Soccer/Football. After last night;s Jets vs Sydney match you KNOW you are on a loser on that one. Albatross2147 11:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not usually so incredulous, but wtf? If you want to elicit a response from another user, being a condescending dick is not the way to go about it.--cj | talk 22:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin article at FAC

Hello. Could you help me out with a copyedit of the article on Aaron Sorkin? It's been asked that I get uninvolved editors to give it a once-over to help get it through FAC. And if possible even help me out with another Support? Thanks for any modicum of help you can provide.-BiancaOfHell 11:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment as to the comprehensiveness of the article, but it is very well-written.--cj | talk 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

Always very grateful when you do this! You manage to turn some of my bizarre and incoherent sentences into something more refined. Thanks! :) michael ^talk 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind word, cj. :) While I'm here, is there any chance you'd be able to take a look over my latest article, Paul Papalia, and see if you could do some copyediting? I'm still prone to this irritatingly clunky prose at times, which is rather frustrating. Rebecca 22:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I actually had a bit of a chuckle when I read that - thank you! As to my lofty aspirations, one day. Keep well cj. :) michael ^talk 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni Sections

Do you know of Policy/ Guidelines on the use of notable alumni sections in school articles? They seem to be common on SA articles but with disputed relevance. These sections seem to be common in other article. Happy trails ...maelgwn talk 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any guideline I'm aware of (though the schools project may have one) for alumni sections, but it would seem appropriate to approach them on a case-by-case basis, as with all so-called 'notable people' sections. I often find they are just magnets for unverifiable trivia and remove them. If they are worthless, there's no point abiding them. Happy editing,--cj | talk 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Establishing notability of schools appears difficult generally. If there are notable alumni then that can support school notability. Paul foord 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point – I hadn't considered that. Nevertheless, if these sections are sub-par, their overall effect will be detrimental to an article's credibility.--cj | talk 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I Haven't found any guidelines in the schools project, I was thinking that if a person was deemed notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia then they were notable enough to be in a notable alumni section but this is not necessarily true ...maelgwn talk 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools#Structure does have the heading => will be present where relevant. Paul foord 11:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops ... Interestingly the example about alumni given, Upper Canada College, then has a list of alumni that seems to be full of people about as interesting as any of the SA lists but slightly better written. ...maelgwn talk 12:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Importantly, all already have Wikipedia articles. While having a Wikipedia biography is not an assurance of notability, it certainly makes such lists more credible. Perhaps we should develop our own set of guidelines for WP:ADEL so that we can enforce a standard on Adelaide schools?--cj | talk 12:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Pembroke School, Adelaide, of the list of 6 sportspeople, 4 have articles. Assuming the article is accurate, these four are three national sportsmen and one commonwealth games gold medalist, while the two without articles have an olympic gold and a world championship between them. ...maelgwn talk 12:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for assessment

Hi Cyberjunkie, since you're doing so much assessing at the moment (and THANK YOU by the way, I'm extremely chuffed you gave my article on the Aust. Chamber Music Festival a B rating, there's still much to be done on it though!) I was hoping I could ask a huge favour of you, could you please go over the Palm Island article sometime before 8pm (AEST) tonight and give some third party input over what areas need a lot or a little improvement to get it up to the highest possible standard. I will then try to focus during the 24 hours leading up to it loosing the Collaboration of the Fortnight status on those specific areas, I just need a bit of guidance as I've been a bit all over the place with making improvements to this article. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cyberjunkie, thanks for helping out here, could you please let me know why you removed the TOC placement (discussed), could you also let me know on the talk page if you did anything which changes the substance as I can't be bothered going through the edit carefully and I trust you. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi WikiTownsvillian. I made no change to the content with that edit – I just moved what was there into a more standard order. I removed the forced TOC because it was un-necessary and created an irregular layout in which the introduction was segregated. Sorry for not explaining why – I didn't notice the prior discussion on the talk page. Thanks,--cj | talk 12:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WA

Thanks for that, good precedent! Satu Suro 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Hi cj, i'm not familiar with the process for checking out sock puppets, but I have a suspicion the following are the same person: Victorperton, LibVictoria, and Donvale.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeshift9 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 February 2007

Well, they all see to have an interest in Victor Perton, but it doesn't seem as though they are being disruptive. It's worth noting that both Victorperton and Donvale have long contribution histories, which would be unusual for sock puppets. I ought to point out that our sock puppet policy doesn't actually prohibit the use of all sock puppets, just those that are used to violate policy or evade bans. If you notice (or have noticed) the accounts being disruptive, let me know. --cj | talk 12:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I thought WP was against all sock puppets, not just disruptive ones. Cheers for the clarification :-) Timeshift 12:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hamersley

Hi, sorry to bother you :) I'm trying to get Hamersley, Western Australia to FAC, it's at the first draft stage at the moment and I would really appreciate a second opinion on content and prose, as well as if anything obvious is missing (apart from images, which I'll place once the prose is settled - most are on the talk page for the article atm). Orderinchaos78 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Long time, no write

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in developing a nav box to link all the year in Australia articles - the bulk of them have a very ugly see also section at the start and no template. The generic year nav box, which I find kind of terrifying, seems to be used on the 2000s in Australia. We have year in Australia, century in Australia and the more recent years have incumbents (which could probably be merged back into the year) which would need to be incorporated into the template.

On other template issues, do you think you could make this one {{Lighthouses of Victoria}} less ugly?

One last thing, I'm prepared to stub all the red links on the "day in Australia" feature so it can go live on the portal; lots of people have worked on it and it's a neat feature. I'm going to start working on March now so it would be complete for a March 1 launch on the portal, and follow on from here. Does this sound good to you, and how may items should we have per day (I'm thinking around 5 or <250 words)?

Thanks --Peta 11:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peta – sorry for my belated response. It's nice to hear from you :). I'd be happy to attempt a template for the Years in Australia series (some sort of succession template ought to do), though I'm cautious about deviating from the standard and it'd have to wait awhile. I've implemented a quick fix to {{Lighthouses of Victoria}}, which seems a superfluous template with only three linked articles. It'd be great to finally include an anniversaries section on P:AU – if you can check the days over, it could go on pretty much straight away. About 4-5 entries per day sounds like a fair size. I've been a bit slack with the portal lately, but I've been meaning to give it a face lift, so I could aim to have that done by the end of this month to 'relaunch' on 1 March with days in Australia included.--cj | talk 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the lighthouse box; I think it's quite useless too, but at least now it is attractive. No hurry for the years nav box. March 1 seems link a good choice to make the days go live since I'd like to have the red links fixed up a month in advance. Are portals strictly free content these days?--Peta 01:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also what do you think about tense; past or present - the day blurbs are using both at the moment.--Peta 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sergio Marchionne

Hello Cyberjunkie, and thanks for reviewing the CSD on Sergio Marchionne. For some bizarre reason, Nenyedi insists on re-adding that tag, and is adamant the page should be deleted. That and he has attempted to blank discussions on the talk page. Seems like a giant waste of time, but if you could help set him straight, that would be much appreciated. He seems to ignore the warnings by me and another user who has tried to intervene. regards, Taalo 18:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Future of WP:AUS

Having had a thorough look into multi-assessments that function for parent and sub-project, I'm convinced we can adapt the Indian model currently in use. Whenever you're free to tackle the task let me know and we'll forge ahead with it if you're happy with what they're doing. I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Future so we can track progress. -- Longhair\^talk 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

SA Parliament profiles

Hi cj, the parliament has changed their servers and URLs and now the vast majority of the lower and upper house MPs go to a 404 page. Is there some wikipedia tool that can do a mass change if you give it conditions, or do I need to go through the task of updating all of them? Timeshift 20:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, I appreciate them! Please don't hesitate to comment on or criticise my use of the tools. – riana_dzasta 07:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Soldier settlement (Australia)

Hi Cyberjunkie, soldier settlement schemes directly influenced every state of Australia and have a direct link to irrigation commencement etc. Until today there was no article on Wiki covering the topic. I have started it and have also suggested it to be a WP:ACOTF article - would welcome your support if you think that such an article is appropriate for a collaboration project? --VS ^{talk...images} 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 20:06 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about that, I did that during my newbie days. Won't happen in future. Spebi^[c] 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Movement

Hey there cj. If you've got any time, is there any chance you could give me any comments or suggestions on how to refine my latest piece before it goes to FAC? Hope the start of another uni year is going well. michael ^talk 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Rebecca 10:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Queensland mountain names

The reason why I changed the titles from the earlier Mount Glorious (Queensland) to Mount Glorious, Queensland (and likewise with Mount Nebo and Mount Pleasant) was because of problems and confusion which occurred with the naming of the Mount Coot-tha, Queensland article — which I also had originally named as Mount Coot-tha (Queensland) in an attempt to make the names (I thought) uniform with other Wikipedia articles of a like nature.

Because the (Queensland) has already been used previously for the naming of the articles it will now prove to be very difficult, if not impossible, to change them back to their former titles. Sorry. Figaro 03:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUS future

Nothing is stopping us from adapting the Indian model, though I must admit, I'm currently working from a laptop at present which I haven't had the joy of using for some years. I'm only waiting for my usual workstation to return to its' former glory. Have you looked into WP:INDIA at all? It appears to be the solution we're aiming for, give or take a few exceptions. -- Longhair\^talk 09:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Australian Culture

Which bit of it is not factual? let's discuss it on the discussion page rather than having a revert war. Cheers RayNorris 09:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Canada

I have responded to your comments on Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Current events/Canada. Mkdw ^talk 13:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Designs

I have been going around trying to make a good look for my User & Talk page, but I don't understand this Wiki-code much. Could you either tell me where to go to find how to make one or show me how to make one. Thanks in advance, Nescio sed Scio 02:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Germaine Greer

Hi, can you explain this edit of yours please? There was no editorializing. The material was properly sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems I botched my revert. I intended only to remove the Pamela Bone paragraph.--cj | talk 08:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cascading semi-protection

It would be a nice time saving tool if it worked, but it doesn't. It has a bug that fully protects everything transcluded on the page, not just semi. So please be good and don't use it anymore. :P -Amarkov moo! 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if that bug didn't exist, the application of cascading semi-protection would enable any user with a non-new account to semi-protect arbitrary pages. —David Levy 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Visual arts portal

Hi Cyberjunkie, DYK and "Things you can do" were in the 'reversed arrangement' on P:VA that you encountered because, at the time, switching them caused a break in IE's display of the portal. For the longest time, I couldn't figure out why, so I just left them switched because it was working. Your switching them, which I have to tell you did break the layout again, forced me to take another look at the issue. And I figured it out! So while I'd come here originally to let you know that the switching of those two boxes had broken the display and that I needed to revert it, I can now thank you for forcing me to fix the problem. Cheers. Planetneutral ^talk 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, apparently, I was fantasizing. It's still broken. The issue is the use of the main page bullet template that one of the peer reviewers said needed to be used. I'm gonna keep looking at it, but I may need to just switch the boxes back if I can't figure it out. Unless you have ideas? Planetneutral ^talk 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a block?

Would you therefore please explain how I am to request a block for that user? Downy 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Only administrators can block users. You can report persistent vandals to administrators at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. In the case of User:Sooyoo, a block is not necessary.--cj | talk 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sub-assessments

Good work narrowing down the WP:AUS assessments. I've been offline with home pc hassles of late so it's good to see change while I'm gone. I'm still absorbing the changes but I'm sure it's a workable system. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 01:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A glitch with my recent crime parameter additions, both Category:Stub-Class Australian crime-related articles and Category:Stub-Class Australian crime articles are being used. The former is the existing category, the latter being the new wording you've created. I don't really care which wording is used. I think I prefer your format better. -- Longhair\^talk 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you back. It took me a bit to figure out the Indian banner, but it seems to work. I had the same problem with Adelaide articles, but I wanted to be consistent with the national categories, so I just deleted all the "-related" ones. --cj | talk 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This page can be of help: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.--cj | talk 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Australia and the United Nations

Hi cj. Australia and the United Nations has been selected as the new Australian collaboration of the fortnight. I created a tiny stub. Please help to improve it however you can. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Oceania

It means exactly what it says: you first falsely claim the references (at least two) don't support the assertion, and then you challenge their authority. Make senseless arguments elsewhere, please. Corticopia 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to provide any sources to support your claim. An atlas is not a reliable source, and this is just laughable. Make baseless claims elsewhere, please. --cj | talk 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh: an atlas (not just one) isn't a reliable source regarding a geographic concept? I'm sure you will try to hurl another policy to discredit a minority viewpoint you may not agree with. Frankly, you have failed to dispute the sources adequately. And you're an admin? That's laughable. Corticopia 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've let external frustrations escalate this situation. I certainly don't recall having been on the brink of the three-revert rule before, and that in itself is reason to step back. So, mea culpa. I'll return this when I'm more in a mood to argue.--cj | talk 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- I am also experiencing my share of duress both here and elsewhere. I also apologise for the harsh words. And please note: I do not maintain that Oceania is a continent (on the contrary), but it is a minority viewpoint that is noted in a number of reputable publications and, thus, deserves some mention. Thanks. Corticopia 04:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding :)--cj | talk 04:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-17 Jinxy

There is a case involving you and another editor, please stop by and have a look. Try to keep everything to the facts. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to the accusations in due course, but I don't foresee submitting myself to a process in which I have little confidence. Thanks for the notification,--cj | talk 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: RfA

I can't help but point out that this comment is blatant misinformation. WP:CANVASS does not apply at all to the listing at WP:AWNB. Please retract your comment as it it is unfair to the candidate.--cj | talk 03:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS most certainly does apply to the listing at WP:AWNB. I suggest re-reading the page, specifically the bit about "friendly posting". Attempting to skew process at an RfA is, of course, disruptive. Thanks for the comment and please feel free to get back in touch with any further questions or concerns gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you point where WP:AWNB has been disruptive? That is, of course, while assuming good faith?--cj | talk 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As a whole, WP:AWNB is a great resource. I participate in and utilise a similar resource, WP:IWNB. The only "disruptive" practise I can see is directing people towards specific RfA's which they are likely to support gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This listing is not solicitation, it is information. Hence, it accords with WP:CANVASS. Your belief that people viewing the notice are more "likely to support" is unfounded. --cj | talk 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is solicitation, as it is an overt attempt to direct people to Mr. Billington's RfA. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is not based on policy. It assumes an inherent menace on the part of AWNB users. The listing is completely neutral, with no attempt to influence opinions on the candidate one way or another. In other words, it does not solicit. So again, WP:CANVASS is irrelevant.

With regards to this comment, I should point out that I do not question your right to oppose the candidate. I just did not think it fair to let misinformation go unchallenged. --cj | talk 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks for the note! Of course, our primary disagreement is the validity, or lack thereof, of listing RfA's on the notice board, so where I simply see information, you see misinformation gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that I assumed no "inherent menance" with regards to the nature of AWNB users. That comment is a gross misinterpretation of our discussion, and apologies about any confusion you may have had gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't allege that you assume menace, but I certainly feel that is the implication arising from your argument – a subverting of process by AWNB users. I'd like to return to the original point, however. Your statement on the candidacy alleges that it "is currently being canvassed for support at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements." This claim remains unsubstantiated, so, with due respect, I again ask you to retract the comment.--cj | talk 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

S..P..

Our s..p.. of the month got blocked yesterday (ie wa project) - I have serious problems re good faith for red talk page link users until I see the whites of their contribtions go beyond the first 10 and no vndlsm recorded :) As for rivalry - nah - we're all trying to survive the same thing of having a meetup at breakfast time ... I think whatever city it is - we'll all need moral support where ever we are for that, either very strong coffee or some nutritional equivalent of a cattle prod or the likes :) Satu Suro 08:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your problem in the West. Because of users like that, I have my own trust issues with new users. Hence why I raised it. And I was only half-joking about rivalry; while I'm sure we'll put on a better breaky for Jimbo, we're always here to help you Sandgropers out :P Happy editing,--cj | talk 08:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloody croweaters - always just the same just because we have a footy team or two.. :) Satu Suro 09:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but, we'll manage without any help from you lot. —Moondyne 09:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A new page

Hello dear Cyber Junkie. what is your opinion about this new page I made about a persian young journalist Kourosh Ziabari.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sate Journalist (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 March 2007.

OK, I'll bite. I can only imagine this is in someway linked to Pablo Ganguli?--cj | talk 10:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it's just random. In any event, I've deleted it per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Ziabari.--cj | talk 10:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Brunch (TV program)

Hi Cyberjunkie, the article (Brunch (TV program)) has come to my attention recently. The actual name for the television program is not yet confirmed by the Seven Network, therefore the article is incorrect. Could the article please be deleted, until a further date when more information and an actual name for the television program is confirmed. Thanks. Stickeylabel 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Momomoses

I've only blocked this guy for a week, seeing as he probably just needs a cool-off. Hope that's OK, and that you're doing well :) Cheers, – Riana ^ঋ 07:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Riana. I trust your decision :)--cj | talk 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Australia/Did you know

Hi cj. I appear to have broken this page and it wont display on the main Portal page. Can you please fix?--Mattinbgn/^talk 12:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matt. No, you haven't broken it. I've stopped displaying DYK on the portal because it was not being updated regularly (something which I don't have the time to do, and which no-one else seems willing to do). --cj | talk 13:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)