User talk:Xdamr/Archive 5

Category:Proposed for deletion for over five days

Hi, you closed the deletion discussion for this category, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_18#Category:Proposed_for_deletion_for_over_five_days, with a closing result of Delete, but you didn't delete the category. --Xyzzyplugh 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in the CfD work queue at the moments—a little AfD template editing is necessary before it can be safely deleted. Thanks for the note though. --Xdamr^talk 11:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know there was a CfD work queue. --Xyzzyplugh 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

First closing of Anti-Christian and Related

Hi Xdamr. Can you please explain your first closing of Categories for Deletion: Anti-Christian and Related on April 18? As has been noted, there was clearly no concensus at that point. I want to understand what happened. Thanks, Majoreditor 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you are probably right that an overwhelming majority were not in favour of deletion at that point, however CfD is not a vote, consensus is an amalgam of policy, discussion, and precedent out of which an outcome is derived. It was a judgement call (and as it the case with closing any 'controversial' debate, the result would almost certainly have been immediately taken to DRV), I think my closing comments describe my rationale fairly succinctly - [1].

After having done this I carried merrily on my way. Coming back to WP later in the day, I found that User:Wassermann had taken this very (too?) personally, leaving me a barrage of comments on my talk page (see most recent archive if interested). Reading through his comments, re-reading the debate, I asked myself whether my judgement on the debate was correct (yes IMHO). However I did note something that I failed to observe at the time - up to the point of my closure, the debate had been attracting a steady stream of comments. CfD has a five day debate period, after which debates are open to be closed once consensus has been reached. Given the nature of the debate and the continued flow of comments, I concluded that I had closed it prematurely. I left a reply to User:Wassermann explaining my decision to re-open - [2].

That's about it. Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-mormonism

As a step prior to deletion review, I am contacting the closing admin for the CfD of Category:Anti-Mormonism.[3] As more and more people got wind of these deletions, the lack of consensus became more clear, resulting in 6 CfD being closed as "no consensus" (see Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Anti-Christianity, and Category:Anti-Protestantism on April 18th, and Category:Anti-Buddhism, Category:Anti-Hinduism, and Category:Anti-Judaism on April 23rd). Therefore, for consistency in deletion process, and based on a number of users concerns for "either delete them all or keep them all" I ask you to please consider restoring this cat. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are rarely regarded as compelling lines of reasoning. Having taken another look at the debate my feeling is that whatever the concerns/opinions expressed re. the other categories, this one seems to be pretty clear-cut. I must therefore decline to make a unilateral restoration. By all means feel free to raise this at WP:Deletion review though.

Regards, Xdamr^talk 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Casus Belli of Anglo-Boer War

G'day Xdamr

Sorry to do this; but I think you're mistaken removing the Jameson Raid as the Casus Belli for the Boer War. Even Jan C. Smuts said, in 1906, it was the 'real declaration of war' and so with a citation, I suggest the claim is verifable and should be restored in the article's info box. I've added a piece; but somehow can't get the rest up inside the info box. A reference to J.C. Smuts statement on the casus belli is in Thomas Packenham, The Boer War,"Part 1, Milner's War"; also see Ron Bester, Boer rifles and Carbines of the Anglo Boer War, Bloemfontein, 1994, p. 8;

Regards Tonyob 13:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The Jameson Raid was a symptom, but it wasn't a cause. The life of Smuts is the one area that I feel qualified to describe myself as 'expert' in, I acknowledge your quote as an indication of how he felt at the time. But that's just the point, Smuts's view is a reflection of his own disappointment in 1906, his own subjective view of the situation in the aftermath of defeat and Milner's administration of post-war South Africa. This is vital biographical information so far as Smuts goes, but it can't really be taken as an objective analysis of the causes of the war.

As I said, the Raid was a symptom - a symptom of the growing British imperialistic sentiment in the last decade of the nineteenth century. Joseph Chamberlain, as the Colonial Secretary, reflected this in his general approach to SA; he would have been more than content for the Raid to have succeeded and for rule to be re-established over the Transvaal. However the Raid failed, Rhodes was largely neutralised as a force, the republics remained independent.

Without doubt the Raid signalled to Kruger that there was a new political current influencing British policy, that the London Convention was no longer the watertight guarantee of independence he believed, but did it start the war? In a philosophical sense (the sense in which I interpret Smuts's comment) then possibly - at least insofar as the Transvaal were concerned. But in the more specific, literal sense I think that that is a hard point to argue, especially in light of the four years of certain and definite peace which followed. The Raid heightened tensions, though peace was preserved, however once Milner came onto the scene, with his determination to resolve the South African issue, the situation could only go one of two ways - Afrikaner surrender or war.

Packenham's book provides an excellent description of Milner's approach and policy in these four years. Another which you might care to refer to, if interested, is The Fall of Kruger's Republic by JS Marais. Milner essentially seized upon the uitlander issue and used it as leverage against the Transvaal, insisting that they (to paraphrase) reform or die. That was the cause of the war, the Boer failure to bend before this new wind.

The question of whether it was Boer intransigence against justifiable British pressure, or whether British policy was geared towards forcing a war by unreasonable demands against a sovereign state is one which has been endlessly debated. The answer is probably a bit of both. Young men like Smuts were certainly aware of the need to reform the ramshackle structures of the Transvaal, and the Bloemfontein conference certainly provided the opportunity to continue the process. However, regardless of which side of the fence you come down on, it is the 1898-99 period, with Milner's 'working up steam' and Kruger's response which really set the course for the collision. The Raid may have poisoned the well, but the chain of events which objectively caused the war happened years afterwards.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent off a little :) --Xdamr^talk 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: CFD/W

Thank you and happy editing, Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 16:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Singers

Hi there! I was away for a few days, but I was informed of some additional debate in the CFD on [female singers], and like A Musing I would want to endorse Xtifr's solution. As I wanted to do that I note you closed the debate yesterday. Perhaps in light of this new solution and the fact that several people changed their opinion based on that, you would reconsider your closing? Thanks. >Radiant< 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It still leaves things a little more evenly balanced than probably desirable, but looking at the debate as a whole I would be prepared to follow this course. Feel free to record your change of opinion on the debate, for posterity's sake :)

Regards, Xdamr^talk 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tally

I don't really see why those tallies have to be visible on the WP:CFD main page, they're only useful as a convenience for the regular closers. The thing is that presently, you can edit the "working" page as a whole and do all your work there (listing pages as deletes/merges, removing days that are done, and updating tallies). If this work is spread over two pages, this inconveniences the closers. It will almost certainly mean that several of those will stop updating tallies, thus defeating the point of tallies. >Radiant< 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we misunderstand one another - there is only one tally (now), a single tally page, transcluded onto both CFD and CFD/W. This contrasts with the situation before, where CFD/W had its own regularly updated tally (it is the working page after all) and CFD also had an independently maintained, not-too-well updated tally.

If we could remove it from CFD then there would be no problem, but some seem to want a list of open days there, so at the very least it should be current - hence the transclusion. Edit the transcluded page (via handy link provided) and it shows up on both pages.

The big problem with this 'fix' is that one cannot use the standard 'edit' link to edit the section; if you do then you just end up with the transclusion code. To edit the tally you need to click on the special edit link provided at the foot of the section. If you have any suggestions re. that then I would appreciate it.

Xdamr^talk 09:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• A very simple solution: Transclude WP:CFD/W on the main "CFD" page, and put noinclude tags around the lower half of the page that lists all the closed discussions. Problem solved? :) >Radiant< 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaah, insanely simple, nice solution, well done. --Xdamr^talk 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Place of death missing etc. categories

Please forgive my not getting back to you sooner - 'real life' has been very busy. As I understood it, the closing as 'repurpose' meant to create a template which goes on the talk page of an article saying "This article does not specify the place of death of its subject. If you know of a source for this information, please add it". No doubt there exist sources which list the places of death of several notable people but in general it would be an individual piece of knowledge. Where editors wished to go on a purge of articles not giving the place of death, they could look for targets through 'What links here' on the template.

That is what I was thinking. I may, of course, have misunderstood it. I notice you closed another debate around a similar issue not so long ago and I do think it would be better to have a consistent approach between them, so I'm perfectly prepared to clarify and amend my closing. Sam Blacketer 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Consensus has grown over the past month or so that these administrative categories ought not to be present on the main article page, distracting as they do from the main encyclopaedic scheme of categorisation. Having said that, they do have some use so it would be a shame to lose them. The solution which has been developed is to 'Repurpose' them - that is to say to move them from categorising the main article to have them categorise the article's talk page, in just the same way as other internal Wikipedia categorisation (eg. WikiProject assessment by quality categories).

That is the basic rationale, hope that helps you out.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 09:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Caravaggio close

Category:Caravaggio paintings in the Borghese collection - don't you have to add Merge to Category Caravaggio paintings as well? - everybody was unanimous on this. See my comment to Otto about leaving it for the closer to do. Johnbod 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, thanks for pointing out that omission. --Xdamr^talk 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Analysis" category

I noticed that Category:Analysis was recently deleted because a 'bot came around and changed a page on my watch list. I looked at the deletion discussion and saw that you closed it. I had a few questions so I'd thought I'd ask here.

The article on my watch list, basis function did properly belong in Category:Mathematical analysis. I'll fix that shortly. But it makes me wonder just how many other articles in Category:Analysis along belong, especially given the comment, "Most of the articles seem to be mathmatical or staistical; they should go to the "Mathmatical analysis" sub-cat. Johnbod" in the CFD. Is there any way to take a look now that the category is gone? And in the future, when touching on math issues, could you please contact the Wikipedia math project at WT:WPM so that members can join the discussion? Thanks, Lunch 18:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking through other CFDs from that day, there was also Category:Multivariable calculus that got moved, but the math project wasn't notified to join the discussion. Lunch 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So far as notification etc goes, this is something which is outwith my purview. As the closing admin all I do is come along and take a look at the debate (after the 5 day debating period) and see if consensus has been determined. I would suggest though that you consider watchlisting categories that you are interested in, the whole 'inform interested parties/creators' suggestion is one which is honoured more in the breach than in the observance I'm afraid.

Now, with respect to the contents of Category:Analysis; Wikipedia does not have a method of undeleting or viewing the contents of past categories - this is down to the way they are implemented. However Google cache is your friend ([4]). This snapshot was taken on 22/04, so it doesn't necessarily reflect the contents of the category immediately before deletion, however it is probably substantially identical and should provide you with a starting point.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It occured to me later that I could look through the bot's contrib list. There were only a few articles that got broken.

About posting a note to the math wikiproject, I know these things don't always happen. I'm just asking you, personally, if you see these sorts of things in the future, to think of putting a quick note on the project's talk page. It'd be super cool. Cheers, Lunch 00:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lists of fictional characters in horror

Hi there! I'm a bit confused by the closing of this nomination. It seems that all three people who commented on it agree on getting rid of the category, whether by merging, deletion, or redirecting. Wouldn't you agree that we're using different wording to mean essentially the same thing? >Radiant< 09:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken another look at it. All the articles in question seem to be categorised within Category:Lists of fictional characters in film, there doesn't seem to be any real need to merge these anywhere else so I'll delete the category. How's that for you?

Xdamr^talk 12:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Thanks! >Radiant< 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MilitaryCrossRibbon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MilitaryCrossRibbon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Balticrev.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Balticrev.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Madmedea 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

.

The same applies to Image:Crimea1854rev.png and any other medal images you may have uploaded. Please check all of them for copyright status, noting that PD-art does NOT apply to photographs of 3-d works of art. Madmedea 13:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• If you scanned them, that's fine just change the tag to PF-self. I think the PUI disputed page takes 14 days to process so I'd recommend doing it before then. Once you have, feel free to cross out the entries that you have dealt with. Thanks for understanding. Madmedea 08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Xdamr, thanks for your careful consideration and support in my RfA, which passed unopposed. Your evenhandedness in light of our recent disagreement at DRV is much appreciated, and is a standard of fair conduct I will strive to emulate. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully a couple of days a ago. I was busy the last couple of days, but I do really appreciate your support. Happy editing, Signature^brendel 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslim travel writers

Hi, Just to say that I was a tad surprised to see in your closing that "It seems to be accepted that the intersection of 'Muslims' and 'Travel writers' per se is invalid—at least no contributor seems to have argued against this" given this:

"What WP:OC, which the nomination quotes, refers to is "Irrelevant intersection of religion and profession". I would say this is a highly relevant intersection, even including the modern converts. I would not support "Methodist travel writers", nor would this create a precedent in favour of such categories. The main travel writers category could be renamed pretty accurately "Travel writers with a Western background" (that is not a suggestion) and the perspective offered by Muslim writers is sufficiently different to be well worth its own sub-category. Johnbod 16:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC) "

Johnbod 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CFD related action

I see you closed out Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_15#Comedy_troupes. Category:Second City alumni is causing a problem for WP:WPChi because The Second City now has multiple troupes in various cities. Would it be appropriate for us to set up subcategories for Second City alumni by city so that we don't end up claiming Mike Myers (actor) by bot tagging him with a {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose usual categorisation guidelines apply—essentially this boils down to the question of whether such a category would have sufficient members to be viable. I'm not thoroughly familiar with The Second City, but if the number of Chicago alumni are non-trivial then there shouldn't be any problem. --Xdamr^talk 13:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted category - Periodic abstinence

I saw that you deleted the category "Periodic abstinence" ([5]) because the category was empty. I believe the category was emptied in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, ("please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision"). I did not restore the articles while the nomination was being considered to avoid an edit-war, but I do not believe the empty category was a valid reason for deletion.

I believe that unless a consensus was found during the discussion, the category should be kept (this is what happens in no consensus closures, right?) and the articles that were improperly removed from it restored. I would like to hear your thoughts on the issue. Lyrl ^Talk _C 19:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not realise that the category had been emptied wholesale. If that is the case then that puts a different complexion on things. As I noted in my closure, no discernible conclusions had emerged (ie 'No Consensus'). There is no way of knowing exactly what was in the category—if you have particular knowledge then it would be appropriate for you to re-create it.

Xdamr^talk 00:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyrl knows exactly which methods were in "periodic abstinence". I was not familiar with how to go about categorizing materials when I created Category:Behavioral methods of birth control. I didn't realize that renames could be used when the meaning of the category was changing. This is a really underhanded thing for Lyrl to do. They are strongarming their personal opinion. The methods that Lyrl is placing in "periodic abstinence" do not involve periodic abstinence for the vast majority of users. The category name is incorrect. What can be done? Joie de Vivre 02:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyrl, if you were aware that what I was doing was in violation of policy, why didn't you say something at the time? It's notable that keeping your mouth shut about my mistake allowed for you to protest and overturn what I was doing on a technicality. Joie de Vivre 17:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Islamic science

Hi, you closed the AfD as "Rename to Category:History of Islam and science". This should at least have been "Rename to Category:History of Islamic science" (a subtle but very critical difference). However, I really don't see even a consensus to do that and would rather wait how the discussion at Talk:Islamic mathematics ends, as both the categories and pages on Islamic mathematics, astronomy, mathematic, etc. should be named consistently. —Ruud 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Administrative recreation"

Excuse me, but what is this? --tjstrf talk 21:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. I went through a tranche of CfD debates, closing them according to consensus. In a bit of a blunder I then proceeded to delete those categories which had 'Delete' results, without emptying them first. So as not to cause problems at WP:CFD/W I re-created them and listed them on the page as I should have done in the first place. In due course they will be empties by bot and deleted. (I don't know if you are familiar with how CfD results are processed, but trust me, it will end up deleted per the result of the debate :) )

Hope that clears things up. Xdamr^talk 00:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, given that the category in question is now empty, I have deleted it. --Xdamr^talk 00:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that was probably the case after posting here, and since it was only 3 or so members large just cleared it out myself. Sorry if I came across as confrontational there, I just found your edit summary rather unilluminating and had forgotten that there were more steps to CfD than just discuss-decide-delete. --tjstrf talk 10:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Repost of Category:Retro fiction anime

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Retro fiction anime, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Retro fiction anime was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Retro fiction anime, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Retro fiction anime itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Sociopaths

Hey Xdamr, take a look at Category:Fictional sociopaths to see how I cleaned it up. There really is a need for this category, it's just starting to warm up... uh, I'm assuming you're in charge here. =CJK= 01:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as you will have noticed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_14#Category:Fictional_sociopaths was a pretty clear 'delete' result. If you want to go about re-creating the category then you can discuss it at WT:CFD. If you just go ahead and re-create it then it is likely to be nominated on CfD again, although it may be that your arguments in such CfD debate could lead to the category being kept. Anyway, best to discuss first and get a sample of opinion.

Xdamr^talk 01:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, that was a lot of technical jargon. Anyway, as you can see, Xdamr, the category has not only been cleaned up it has been restructured. Also, there is no other category for fictional characters with an A Class personality disorder. =CJK= 06:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I didn't mean to jargonise it. Essentially what I suggest is that you post a message on the Categories for discussion talk page, stating why you think that category ought to be re-created. Categories which are simply re-created after having been previously deleted are likely to find themselves nominated for deletion as reposts of deleted content. Try discussing it and see if you can gain acceptance that your new version of the category is a good thing.

Xdamr^talk 13:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now. Check out what I said, if you want to Xdamr... It would be cool if you added something to the discussion. Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Fictional_Sociopaths =CJK= 20:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for filling that in, I couldnt find anywhere how to correctly complete an AfD.--Fresh 15:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks with the help on the Falkand articles. It was acctually something I just idly came across when perusing some wikipedia pages, checked the cross links, checked the refs and ended up going 'Hrm' about. Its funny how random little thoughts can end up getting you in trouble. Oh, and interesting stuff about Smutts. I'd never really known anything about him (despite my interest in history of that period). Always associated the name with the Boers, and while I knew there /was/ a Smutts in the BRitish ARmy, I always assumed it was a different person. Very interesting. Narson 18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, pleased to help. The Falklands articles are something I have watchlisted, but I rarely edit them myself. The fraught nature of the topic means that it is something of a full-time job to make any substantial edits. I've worked on wholesale revision of controversial articles in the past, but at present I simply don't have the time to engage on a long-term basis.

Glad you found the Smuts articles interesting. They're nowhere near finished yet but I've been on a bit of a research spree over the past month or two so I should be able to make some decent headway over the next couple of weeks. It's been a tremendous amount of work (for no reward!) but hopefully, when finished, it will prove to be of some use to people. Smuts isn't at all as well known today as he ought to be—there's not much I can do about that, but hopefully these articles will at least serve as launching point for those who would like to find out about him.

Regards, Xdamr^talk 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I spent the monday bank holiday at Duxford which seems to have a new land war (sadly doesn't go back beyond the 1st world war) hence my checking the Smutt articles when I got home and noticed the links on your user page :) And yes, I have really found out that even trying to get NPOV stuff into the falkland is an uphill struggle. You have to navigate between rapid nationalists on both sides. Narson 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Electronic (band)

Hi Xdamr, I just spotted your administrative recreation of Category:Electronic (band). I thought that administrative recreations of categories were used only for WP:DRV, but I don't see this category at DRV. Have overlooked or misunderstood something, or was the recreation a mistake? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a little blunder a few days ago when closing a tranche of debates. In a fit of absent-mindedness, after closing 4-5 discussions as 'delete', I proceeded go go straight ahead and delete them - all without emptying. In order to rectify this little mess I immediately re-created them, listing them under 'Empty and delete'. I described this as an 'administrative re-creation' (ie a re-creation for the purpose of an administrative process), clearly a flawed description. So no, there is no DRV etc—the categories can be deleted when empty.

Xdamr^talk 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, easy mistake to make! I see that someone else has now deleted this one, so all is sorted. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)