User:John Carter/Adminship

This editor is open to recall as an admin/sysop should any three editors in good standing with more than a month of activity each prior to the first of the three recommendations to desysop, or one admin in good standing, ever indicate support of recall within 90 days of each other. Should that threshold be reached, I shall ask an uninvolved admin to review the recommendations, and make a recommendation. Should that individual support my being desysopped, I will resign. However, regardless of whether that threshold is reached or not, this editor reserves the right to desysop himself at any time if he feels that to be the appropriate response given the specific nature of the comment below. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Support desysopping

Support - I didnt think it would need to come to this, but (fwiw) my carefully considered view is that he should be desysopped. This admin has on more than one occasion displayed a propensity to jump in, take sides and escalate arguments on talk pages, even when he clearly knows little to nothing about the subject. Has also demonstrated utter lack of judgement and understanding of policy on issues such as the one about the "Bollywoodblog images". On another occasion, I have seen him revert war to keep a patently non-RS source and then enter into a war of words against those who removed it. I do not have any reason to believe that he is not a good editor on the Christianity-related articles he normally edits. However, after having watched him for nearly six months now, I can say with conviction that he is unfit to be an admin. He neither has the temperment nor the judgement and understanding of policy to be one. I am not basing my call for desysopping on isolated cases. If another editor or admin wants further clarifications, I will be glad to explain my stance in greater detail. Sarvagnya 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose desysopping

Why do you want to be de-sysopped? You're a good editor. Do you have a specific reason in mind? --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no, but this is how any individuals who do can indicate to me that they do. Thanks for the interest, though. :) John Carter (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

2. I would suggest and support that John stays on as an admin/sysop. He is doing a good job and it shows as in the a case where some inaccurate editors are taking it back on him. Wikidās ॐ 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Above comment is not valid since it does not have justifications with evidences to the statement 'inaccurate editors'. Also none of the editors are 'taking it back' on John Carter who is an excellent editor in his fields of expertise. Wikidas should withdraw the false accusations. Naadapriya (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The 2 supports for desysopping (above and below) is are by editors who are aware that their (and their friends') persistent misconduct are going to finally be formally reviewed. This review would not be possible without a bold admin (John Carter) who calls out that editor's disruptive behavior. I therefore submit that such a vote by these editors who constantly engages in disruptive and unseemly conduct be disregarded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the style of above comments has never got corrected in spite of getting blocked in an attempt to get other editors blocked for no reasons. As usual mix up and dragging unrelated issues in above comments. Here we are talking about Admn's issue not editor's issue. We have great respect to user:John Carter as an excellent editor in his areas of expertise. He is very detailed oriented. I also observed his occasional efforts to lead Hogenakkal falls's long term hung up issue to a conclusion. For some reason he was reversing the same. Things are different when it comes to as an Admn. Naadapriya (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Support desysopping

I had direct experiences with User talk:John Carter regarding Hogenakkal Falls. I observed following

He jumped in to the discussions on solicitation by another editor who was seeking support for his POV
Without going through previous discussions he starts with a conclusive statement that POV is correct
blindly attacks other editors countering POV ignoring their comments
Encourages editors to prematurely start RFC, mediation AN/I etc
Gives a flavor that he is an Admn while editing which may deter others making comments
participates with other editors to choke new editors
posts a private email message in spite of repeated requests to respond openly
appears to strongly mix-up his roles between Admn and editor

He may be a good editor in his field of expertise but not seen qualities expected from an Admn

Naadapriya (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Support Desysopping

Well, based on the comments of Naadapriya and Sarvagnya it seems that John Carter's behavior has not improved much with time. It is my view that this User should never have been made an administrator to begin with. His record speaks for itself. This is not someone who, in my opinion, can or should be trusted to represent Wikipedia as an Administrator in a neutral, fair and responsible manner.

The following thread which provides a detailed account of just a small portion of John Carter’s editorial misconduct in the List of Notable Converts to Christianity controversy was improperly removed from the archive by Carter himself here. I wonder how many editors would have supported his bid for adminship had this record not been buried by Carter and hidden from community view?

This user has a long history of provoking and escalating confrontations with other users and has engaged in, what I see, as very overt harassment. I will be more than happy to provide more examples of his misconduct for anyone who is interested. I would not interject here, were it not for the fact that the recent complaints detailed above are eerily familiar to me. He may have toned his act down a bit, but it sure sounds like the same old behavior patterns. Cleo123 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

"Your assumption clearly demonstrates that you have not read any of the comments that have been made before, which directly address this matter. Maybe you can learn to read what others post? :) Or do you demand that everyone indulge in the same sort of unthinking repetition that has become your calling card? John Carter 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)"

John Carter, people do read your posts, including those made to other articles. Above, John Carter has stated: "And the person involved qualifies as a Christian on the basis of his qualifying under the criteria for inclusion on the list at the top of the article, which are if anything stricter than those employed on the page Christian." I would like to bring the following contribution from the Bob Dylan talk page made only 24 hours ago by John Carter to the community's attention:

"And they aren't being overlooked. However, there is no clear evidence that I have seen that he does currently, in any discernible way, "follow Christ", or see himself as being in any way a Christian. Without that evidence, and with the evidence supplied above, it can reasonably be stated that he is now a "practicing Jew", as that statement is itself neutral regarding his beliefs, whatever they may be. John Carter 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)" [1]

Anyone who has read the above posts is aware that in the last 48 hours John Carter has placed the following tag on the article several times: {{Christian list}}. [2][3] There has been some edit warring on the article during which John Carter has vehemently defended his position that Bob Dylan qualifies as a Christian. For those of you who couldn't be bothered to click on the link to Carter's definition of a Christian, it states the following: “A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.”

In light of his post to the Bob Dylan talk page, it is apparent that Carter knows full well that Dylan is a Jew. Rather than removing a libelous statement from the article he has attempted to manipulate the parameters of the article in order to accommodate his point of view.

Here are the facts:

On April 22nd, Bus stop made his first edit to this article. [4]. At that time the article's introduction read: “The following is a list of people who have converted to Christianity from non-Christian religions.” That’s it. It also carried the Christianity project tag, that Carter is now edit warring to remove,[5]in yet another act of blatant hypocrisy. Only after Bus stop and another editor began removing names from the article [6] were these new “article parameters”, which have been so vociferously defended by members of Wikipedia’s Christianity Project, placed on this article [7] by User:ScottP. It should be noted that this user also openly proposed a conspiracy to get Bus stop blocked. [8] On April 27th, only five days after Bus stop made his first edit to the article, John Carter posted a complaint on the Community Sanctions Noticeboard requesting that Bus stop be permanently blocked from editing this and two other articles. (one of which Bus stop had never edited at all!)[9] After a group effort to get Bus stop and his dissenting opinion banned from the article, an RFC was made that resulted in mixed opinions and no consensus. With the new article parameters still in place, Bus stop nominated the article for deletion. Although the AFD failed, Bus stop’s viewpoint gained more support. At that juncture, John Carter proposed that a complaint be filed against Bus stop with ArbCom. At that time, a new editor to the discussion advised Carter that ArbCom does not handle editorial disputes. [10] I, too, discouraged John Carter from taking such action [11] He has gone ahead and initiated an ArbCom complaint, which is likely to be declined. [12] Now we have him playing more games, removing the long-standing Christianity tag from the article.

This is not about Bob Dylan as far as I’m concerned. It is about POV pushing. The introduction to this article should have never been altered simply to accommodate a point of view. I am restoring the article’s introduction to a format similar to that of all other Lists of Notable Converts on Wikipedia. Likewise, I will remove any names that do not fulfill the criteria prior to the start of this dispute. Bus stop has repeatedly indicated that this whole dispute is all about getting Bob Dylan on the list and anti-semitism. I doubt that is true. At this juncture it seems to be all about pushing Bus stop's buttons in the hopes he'll break 3RR. The evidence clearly shows that John Carter has been unrelenting in his attempts to get Bus stop blocked or somehow "punished" for disagreeing with his POV. It seems that many more nuetral editors have successfully been "bullied" off the page at this juncture by Carter and his gang. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a vehicle for harassment. Cleo123 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I will also point out that John Carter's IP address has recently been blocked in connection with a vandalism only account. [13] Cleo123 04:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there something that you are trying to imply? --C.Logan 05:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it was unblocked almost immediately thereafter as a mistake. It is, unfortunately, a common address where I use my laptop. Are you trying to imply something else? If so, I request that you provide some substantiation of what seems to me to be at least implicitly a personal attack or retract it. Also, please note that the definition which is in the introduction that has been restored is, in effect, the most verifiable variation of the three variations of the definition of "Christian" according to the preexisting text in Christian#Usage among Christians, which seems to be to be the most objective and applicable to the greatest majority of Christians who define themselves as such. Regarding the explicit personal attack of hypocrisy, I do not see how it can be objectively called hypocritical to say that someone can be identified as a Christian, or anything else, in a broad sense, that is to say, having been baptized and not formally explicitly renouncing it, and not say that they can be demonstrably categorized as a Christian at the particular moment based on their current activity, can be called hypocritical. That seems to me to be implying that no one can ever change opinions, which clearly is not the case.

If anything, I think the statement by Cleo123 clearly shows a continuation of the rather unfortunate tendency of the above user to engage in unsubstantiated, non-specific personal attacks, as that user has yet to provide any substantial proof of their own position that I can remember. I also note by the way that that users basis for his/her claims, that the inclusion of someone who has been clearly identified as being a convert to Christianity (or anything else) in the media already might subject wikipedia to a libel action, has yet to be substantiated by any extant policy of wikipedia or with any such example from elsewhere. And yet that user criticizes anyone who thinks that his/her unsubstantiated position has to be taken as an absolute guideline simply on the basis of some nebulous, unsubstantiated threat of a potential libel case.

I do not think that it is POV according to the rules of WP:NPOV to use the most "basline" definition of a term as it is used by the individuals who describe themselves by that term. Regarding the explicit accusation that much of the discussion has been an attempt to cause an individual who has already repeatedly acted explicitly against the guidelines and policies of wikipedia several times to do something he has already demonstrated him/herself more than capable of doing, I personally will say nothing in response other than to say such a unsubstantiated attack on me and others requires some sort of real evidence, something Cleo123 has yet to provide for any of his/her contentions. And the use of the phrase "Carter and his gang" I personally see as being an explicit violation of the personal attack. And the evidence actually shows that I have been trying to get someone who actually has done nothing but seemingly repeat the same statement over and over to stop doing so. Such action is in fact a direct violation of the rules of "tendentious editing" as defined as per WP:TE. I also note that the page is now protected and the non-neutral partisan "correction" made by Cleo has been reversed. If Cleo actually can propose something positive in this discussion, rather than continuing to unilaterally seek to change wikipedia to fit his/her own POV, such as maybe proposing an alternative phrasing on the talk page, I would be welcome it. John Carter 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks are little more than a smoke screen lacking in substance. I have provided multiple citations above to substantiate the points I have made. You, by contrast, have continued to attempt to twist and distort facts. I also have provided multiple sources on this and other pages for Dylan's return to Judaism, which based upon your recent edit to the Bob Dylan page you apparently accept. Sorry, you can't seem to wrap your mind around the concept that your editorial contributions are hypocritical. Let me spell it out more clearly for you :

1)You have tagged the article with a tag that states "This IS a list of Christians"

2)You have provided a definition (which BTW does not stipulate anything about renounciation of baptism. This is original research on your part.). The link you provided states : “A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.”

3) These statements are in the present tense.

4) Elsewhere on Wikipedia you have stated "Without that evidence, and with the evidence supplied above, it can reasonably be stated that he is now a "practicing Jew"

5) You have argued and argued on this page for the fact that Dylan be listed under the tag "This is a list of Christians." Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

This matter is very clear cut. The article's intro has long read: “The following is a list of people who have converted to Christianity from non-Christian religions.” User:Bus stop attempted to remove the name of a practicing Jew from the list. Rather than following Wikipedia's policy WP:BLP and removing a libelous statement, you and others have attempted to change the article's parameters to suit your agenda. Rather than taking a conservative approach, where a living person is concerned, you have created a situation that could be misleading for readers. I have yet to hear one good reason why this list should be different from all other such lists on Wikipedia. The other lists of notable converts to religions are very straightforward and factual, with no special disclaimers for people who may have converted at some point, but may not be converts at present. This is yellow journalism, consistent with tabloid standards and unentirely unworthy of an encyclopedia.

You have repeatedly acknowleged that you are new to Wikipedia, rather than engaging in an open minded policy driven debate and working towards building consensus, you have caused significant disruption to the encyclopedia. Right from the beginning, rather than assuming good faith on User:Bus stop's part, you treated an established editor as if he were a vandal (when his edit was a legitimate WP:BLP issue) and openly campaigned to block him and his dissenting opinion. You have completely ignored the opinions of numerous other editors who have sided with User:Bus stop's view, choosing rather to abuse the system by filing bogus complaints at every venue you can find - thereby wasting administrators time. Rather than working towards a compromise, it seems that you have tried to rally other editors against User:Bus stop and intimidate all those who share his view with implied threats. I have made no personal attacks against you. I have commented on your contributions, not on you personally. I am not a tendentious editor. LOL! Please! Check out how many contributions I've made to the article, then look at your own. I have responded on the talk page to your numerous requests for citations. Indeed, it is downright comical that after I post 13 citations chronicling your disruptive behavior and contradictory statements and actions, your response is to post : "...such a unsubstantiated attack on me and others requires some sort of real evidence, something Cleo123 has yet to provide for any of his/her contentions". There is a tendentious editor here, but it's not me. Cleo123 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, based on the above comments, that user thinks that repeatedly raising allegations and calling other people by at least demeaning and potentially abusive language, such as using the word "hypocrisy" as a headliner, is acceptable. Please read the policy on no personal attacks, of which I believe the comment starting this thread is clearly and explicitly a violation. And creating the "smokescreen" about the number of "contributions" (at least one of which seems to have been a unilateraly change of the content, since reverted, which may have led directly to the current protected state) to the article, I note the above user still has yet to provide a single substantiation of their contention about how inclusion of verifiable information could be cause for a libel suit, despite having said elsewhere that such is your main reason for posting here. Interesting, isn't it, that that person's initial claim for posting here still hasn't in any way been substantiated? I would welcome any such evidence as has already been pointedly requested, by the way. I note that the only post that editor has ever made regarding WP:BLP was [here], regarding the Mel Gibson DUI incident. This despite the fact that there is no text in that page which I can see which would seem to support their contention. I would think that the average user would at least seek to verify whether or not their claim is accurate before basing an entire serious of edits regularly insulting others on it. Are we then to assume that that editor thinks that their simply arguing a position makes it a policy or guideline? Regarding their allegations regarding my my own, admittedly ill-informed and inexperienced conduct, being improper, I would have no objections whatsoever to being subject to mediation or arbitration. In fact, as many of you already know, I have already requested it once. The only people I noticed who seemed to be opposed were the above user and Bus stop. Verification of this can be found on the User talk:Bus stop page, where the above user even seems to encourage Bus stop to refuse to request arbitration. Interesting, isn't it? I wish to go on record saying I would welcome having any outside observer review the behavior of all parties involved, including the above editor, in this and any and all other related incidents. If a formal request for such comment, mediation, or arbritration is requested now by one of the parties who previously opposed it, or by any other party involved, I welcome it. Otherwise, I believe that such threats as seem to have been made above have absolutely no place in wikipedia anywhere. John Carter 16:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

John, you diminish your editorial credibility when you make statements that can so easily be proven false. I would be most appreciative if you would refrain from continually misrepresenting the statements and actions of other editors.

1) My use of the word “hypocrisy” refers directly to the overt contradictions in John Carter’s recent edits to this and the Bob Dylan article. It is not a “personal attack” on Carter, but a discussion of the content he has contributed. If John Carter believes I have made personal attacks on him, I suggest he provide citations. I believe I have exercised remarkable restraint in response to his extreme lack of civility. Indeed, very shortly after I entered this debate, he referred to my contributions as irrational and counterproductive and blatently accused me of acting in bad faith. The fact that I have waited so long to voice my concerns about this editor's behavior demonstrates my patience and restraint in this matter.

2) Unlike this user, I have not engaged in any name-calling or personal insults. As for personal attacks and the use of “demeaning and potentially abusive language”, I suggest John Carter take a look at his own contribution history. Some of the more blatant examples include referring to other users as : “the dead head duo”, “the Mad Hatter” ,“Bus stards”, unqualified to contribute and incompetent.

3) I did not “unilaterally change the introduction to the article”. I restored a version consistent with the parameters as they existed prior to the start of this ugly dispute. [14] I explained my revision on this talk page and it was met with immediate approval from a seemingly neutral editor. [15]. Interestingly, my edit was in response to Carter’s unilateral change to the article, adding his “This is a list of Christian’s” tag.

4) I have made multiple comments on this and other related pages regarding WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, as John Carter is well aware. I have explained my position very clearly, even specifically quoting policy. I would suggest that John Carter take the time to re-read my contributions, instead of making false statements. My edit history also clearly demonstrates that the Mel Gibson article is far from “the only post I’ve ever made regarding WP:BLP.”

5) I wouldn’t say I “discouraged” User:Bus stop from participating in mediation. I presented both sides to him, also offering to assist him in preparing his case, if he decided to participate. [16] In light of the manner that the deck was stacked against him, I think he was wise not to participate. Although the mediation request was framed as a content dispute, only editors supporting John Carter view were listed in his complaint. Carter’s ongoing stream of complaints and requests to have Bus stop banned from editing Dylan material leads me to question the sincerity of his desire for an amicable resolution. Indeed, within days of Bus stop’s first edit to this article, Carter's first warning to User:Bus stop was an administrator’s final warning template on Bus stop’s page.[17]. He has repeatedly left threatening messages for User:Bus stop, along the lines of “if you keep editing, you’ll regret it .”[18] [19]:[20]. He has followed those threats with a host of complaints:[21][22][23] often ignoring other editors who have discouraged the misuse of Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process. Here’s an example, after being told this, 20 minutes later he posts this, then this. Even now, after his Arbcom complaint has been rejected, he continues to explore new forums in which to file complaints.[24][25]

6) Having worked with Bus stop on another article, I have made some sincere attempts to diffuse this situation and facilitate better communication between the parties. [26] [27][28] Likewise, Bus stop has made some attempts to engage in more positive communication. [29] Unfortunately, John Carter, however, appears to be more interested in fighting, as he has repeatedly left taunting messages for Bus stop. [30][31][32][33] These are just a few examples. There are many more.

7) I did not “previously oppose” the RFC. I participated in it. My comments can be read above. Like most of the involved parties, I chose not to post a comment in the Arbcom. It bothered me to see Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process being abused. Carter’s contribution history seems to indicate that he is not interested in reaching an amicable resolution. He seems to be using the system as a means of harrassing User:Bus stop.

8) In defense of his actions, Carter has repeatedly contended that he is an “admittedly ill-informed and inexperienced”.new user. On the surface, Carter has contributed many articles in a very short time period and made an incredibly significant number of edits to Wikipedia. When one examines his contribution history more closely, a disturbing pattern emerges. Confrontations with and complaints against other users [34][35][36][37] are frequently followed by 50 or more mindless edits, such as stubbing articles – making it more difficult to track his behavior. It leads me to wonder if this isn’t by design. As for the many articles he’s created, the vast majority are one sentence stubs. He would appear to be more interested in creating a volume of article titles to list on his user page, than actually working on the articles themselves. I am concerned that this user may have had a prior involvement with User:Bus stop, that pre-dates his account. From his very first edit, he would appear to possess an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia. Certainly, his propensity for Wiki-style legal action against other users is inconsistent with the behavior of most novices to this forum.

I have sincerely attempted to assume good faith on User:John Carter’s part. I have very judiciously watched and noted his escalating behavior, which I consider to be very disruptive. His insistence on pursuing this matter is the only reason that I find it necessary to chronicle his editorial conduct for the community. Above and beyond the personal attacks, litigious complaints, and incivility that I have cited herein; he has also vandalized my own comments on this talk page.. [38] Certainly, Bus stop has made some very inflamatory remarks. However, his commentary appears to be “article driven”. I have not seen him engage in the type of personal insults or retaliation that John Carter has trafficked in. There have been many points in this discussion, where an amicable resolution could have been reached. A clear example is when Bus stop backed away from his stance on the inclusion of Dylan’s conversion in the Bob Dylan article. Editors, such as John Carter are making a bad situation much worse by baiting, taunting and harassing Bus stop.

I believe my suggestion of a separate page for “Notable Converts to Christianity Who Returned to their Former Religions” is a very fair and equitable compromise that could quickly put an end this entire dispute. Cleo123 06:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that Cleo123 has requested an e-mail discussion of this topic at User talk:Bus stop#A Private Conversation? after my last comment above, and has seemingly dropped the earlier request for arbitration. One can only wonder why. John Carter 17:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not "dropped an earlier request for arbitration." I have never made any overtures that would seem to indicate that I was seeking "arbitration." Please, provide a citation to support your statement or stop misrepresenting facts. On the contrary, I have criticized your abuse of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Any "private conversation" I may or may not have engaged in with Bus stop is between that user and myself. Wonder at will...Cleo123 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then bring the official complaint, or I will. I find your tone, particulary the tone of this entire thread, to be a clear and explicit violation of the policy regarding personal attacks. If you do not think that your complaints are sufficient to bring a formal complaint against me, I do think that I have grounds to bring one against you. However, in the spirit of good will, I will give you 24 hours from this posting to bring the complaint against me. At that time, I will file a comment regarding the, IMHO, clear violation of the no personal attacks policy which I believe this entire thread is a clear and explicit violation of. I also reserve the right to bring such complaints on my own in any event. John Carter 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- You've clearly transgressed WP:CIVIL many times in comments to and about me. In fact, abusive references to me, from you, is the norm, not the exception. I have not made so much of an issue of it because I am trying to stay on the topic of the specific dispute at hand concerning this article. But Cleo123 is 100% correct in pointing out your abrasive commentary on and about me, personally. I have not wanted to get into a petty exchange of insults and slights because I have not wanted to be diverted from what I see as the inherent rightness of my article-oriented argument. Bus stop 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I welcome a review of my own behavior as well as of everyone else in this matter. In fact, as stated before, I will formally request it in 24 hours. I am however going to give the above parties a chance to raise their claim first. John Carter 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- I'm not concerned with the petty bickering that you are trying to entice me into. I have articles to write, or to contribute to. Wouldn't we all be better off devoting our energies to that purpose? Wouldn't that be more in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about? Do you view Wikipedia as having the potential of being a viable encyclopedia? Or do you think Wikipedia's bureaucratic arteries need to be bogged down with adjudicating our petty bickering? Bus stop 15:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we would. And seeking outside review is the only way I can see stopping the two of you engaging in such explicit personal attacks as this thread. John Carter 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to read or investigate everything being discussed here and just happened across the discussion by chance, but for all parties involved this might be relevant: Matthew 7:1-5. Cheers, good luck, and why not calm down for a while? Does a heart good. -- Sapphire 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)