User talk:Chocolateboy/Archive 2

Chav and Ali G

I'm puzzled why you chose to remove Ali G from the Chav article. Ali G is surely the best-known chav caricature on the planet. Ali G pre-dates wide use of the term "chav", but the character itself -- right down to the track suit, the trainers, the extravagant bling-bling jewelry, the adoption of sort of a confused London-suburb multiculturalism, a self-conscious piss-take on chav anti-intellectualism... that's about as dead-on as you can get. Plus, Google search "ali g" + "chav" = 14,500 hits. If you feel strongly about this, perhaps post on the Talk page for chav. Regards, MCB 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya.

Several reasons. First off, please see the discussions of this on the talk page, particularly the comment that explicitly addresses this, the comments about "wigger", and the numerous comments about Wikipedia:Verifiability. Secondly, I searched for a reputable source that makes this claim, and couldn't find one. The nearest I could find was this, which a) doesn't say he's a "chav" b) attempts (far from convincingly) to grapple with the term as a foreign expression and c) has a bloggish tone which flunks the reputability test (see Wikipedia:NOR#What counts as a reputable publication?). Third: I think you're confusing "wigger" with "chav". People unfamiliar with the term seem strangely prone to that. However, "chav" has no racial connotations (the Ali G caricature certainly does have racial connotations), though its usage is similar to "white trash". "Pikey", in contrast, does have racial connotations, if you're determined to find a British slang expression that combines race and class. The track suit, trainers, and bling are all derived from hip hop, but that doesn't mean anyone would be anachronistic or confused enough to describe Eazy-E, Schooly D, or any other blingsome rap "ASBOs", as "chavs".

Incidentally, please note that "chav" + "Einstein" gets 28,800 hits. [1] [2]

chocolateboy 23:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the whole Talk page for the article (previously I had just read the tiny Ali G section) and I fear you are missing the point of the criticism of your edits. Your revert of my restoral of the Ali G material accuses it of being original research; that is clearly not so. What you don't seem to understand is that unlike simply verifiable facts (like the height of a building, or the date of a battle), the nature and intent of an artist with respect to a stage or fictional character is necessarily a matter of opinion and interpretation. (Characters don't carry signs saying "I am a caricature of a chav".) That does not mean that it is necessarily unverifiable, but that it needs a different kind of analysis. The point is that it's not my interpretation (which would be OR and POV), but that of lots of people out there, as seen in the Google search, who have made the connection. In opposition to that, we have your personal opinion and analysis about the meaning and cultural interpretation of a number of terms including "wigger" and "pikey", which are interesting but not necessarily relevant here, and more importantly, are your opinion and original research. What I fear from the criticism that I read on the Talk page, and your revert of the Ali G material, is that you believe that you have some unique and expert knowledge of what a chav is, and insist on editing the article to reflect that and not permit other analyses. I hope that is not the case. In any case, below is a tiny sample of the sources that assert or assume an Ali G-chav connection. Whether you think it's a valid connection is irrelevant; what's important is that it reflects consensus popular opinion which is uncontroverted by any authoritative source. (It's by no means unanimous, as the Google refs show, but I'd call it a consensus.)

I'm just on page 3 of Google results here, and there are at least 15,000 more citations.

MCB 23:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people think that beer gives you a beer belly, that stress gives you ulcers, and that you need a large number of people in a room for two of them to have the same birthday. We don't base our encyclopedia on what lots of people on ChavScum mistakenly think. We base it on what reputable sources say. As for your links: they're all blog/forum posts and similar wibblery. As mentioned before, please see Wikipedia:NOR#What counts as a reputable publication?

Are you sure you read the talk page? The dodgy News Shopper source you cite is explicitly mentioned there, and I was not the only person to question its reputability. "Verifiable" means other reputable sources agree.

You're mistaken about "my" interpretation of "pikey" by the way. Please see the article's edit history. Of course, if I've missed something from that article, please be my guest.

chocolateboy 00:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I think you have a very fundamental misunderstanding about the concept of a "reputable source" in terms of interpretation of popular culture. There is no such thing as a single authoritative source here. The denizens of ChavScum are a large part of what defines the concept of a "chav". You're casting about mistakenly looking for something like an official pronouncement, which is certainly valid in the case of medical issues or the height of a building... but not for definition and examples of a pop-culture phenomenon. What you call "wibblery" is what defines the contours of popular culture. News Shopper might be "dodgy" as a source for something like the Queen's birth date, but it's as valid as anything to determine popular consensus about something like this.

In any case, I have provided multiple sources by way of verification. In opposition, you have provided nothing but your naked opinion as some sort of "expert". I believe it to be justified for me to revert, and ask for an RfC if necessary. You are showing signs of attempted "ownership" of this article, which is very bad form. MCB 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ChavScum is noteworthy in this context, which is why it gets mentioned. [3] But a humorous site that consists entirely of forum posts clearly doesn't fall under the rubric of "reputable source" as defined in Wikipedia:NOR. As mentioned in Talk:Chav, if the page were about ChavScum, then cracking open the "Tony Blair is a chav" nonsense might be slightly more plausible.

What you don't seem to understand is that unlike simply verifiable facts (like the height of a building, or the date of a battle), the nature and intent of an artist with respect to a stage or fictional character is necessarily a matter of opinion and interpretation.

No it isn't. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I highly recommend this and this after you've finished rereading Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:No original research.

You're casting about mistakenly looking for something like an official pronouncement

No, just looking for sources comparable in calibre to those the article already contains (the BBC, The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times &c). Reputable sources are particularly important for this article because of its ignominious history of inaccuracy and original research. If you can find reputable sources for the Ali G reference (you've listed none so far), then I'll happily "get me coat".

News Shopper might be "dodgy" as a source for something like the Queen's birth date, but it's as valid as anything to determine popular consensus about something like this.

No it isn't. It makes a claim about Thomson's facts and figures that ought to be trivially verifiable. It isn't:

I have no doubt in my mind that at the very least the stuff about Thomson's needs re-writing. I too can find no evidence whatsoever thet 'Thomson has reported' anything. Preferably it should be deleted as relying on a single rubbish source. Icundell 12:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it to be justified for me to revert, and ask for an RfC if necessary.

Bring it on!

chocolateboy 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal Barnstar

Cheers for that. Glad you liked my changes to the template. :) Wikiwoohoo 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Chocolateboy, would you care to explain why you considered the link to 'Chavopedia' in the humour section of chav was spam? If it's breaking any specific Wikipedia rules to put that link there, kindly show me where. Thanks. --Archstanton 15:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. It's not that I'm especially concerned about that particular link, as that site is very new while Chavscum and Chavtowns are very well established and very popular. But going by Wikipedia's own guidelines on spam, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it. --Archstanton 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

The site is less than two days old and gets just five unique Google hits. We don't add links to non-notable personal websites (the site has 1 registered contributor), and doing so is considered to be spam.

Please see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to for more information.

chocolateboy 16:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for those links and the explanation. --Archstanton 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for rving the spam link. I guess I assumed good faith...Gillespee 07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

Weird. I have no idea what happened in my recent revision of the Britney Spears article. I had no intention of making the vast majority of those changes, only of removing a single spam link. I honestly can't think how the rest of the changes got made. Thanks for making the correction. --Yamla 15:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I figured accidental strangeness was afoot :-)

chocolateboy 16:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scanger

It gets less and less rubbish the more months you revert back ;) --Kiand 18:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Pages

First of all, it wasn't new knowledge to the world, just to the web. Secondly, if Wikipedia is going to be taken seriously then it needs to branch out. Personally, I don't find Britney Spears to be notable in the least. There are probably 30 books on that subject better than the article. In fact, another article on Spears just isn't needed by the world. This is where I have a big problem with notable. To me, Spears just isn't notable. Also, people should have to justify why they are deleting pages. I've seen that deleting pages is a sport on Wikipedia, with the same people trying to delete 100 pages at a time. I doubt if they read them. They sure don't offer any justification indicating that they had. george 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but please take it up on Wikipedia talk:No original research or the village pump. I didn't invent the policy (that honour belongs to Jimbo Wales). I merely endorse and enforce it. Lobbying me will do nothing to change it.

chocolateboy 18:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy planetoid

In this case it is: ... name cannot be Buffy under current astronomical naming conventions. If 2004 XR190 is considered a plutino it must be named for a deity of creation. (See 2003 UB313 (Xena)) They take planetary naming pretty seriously. In the case of Xena, they would have likely offically named it Persephone (a daughter of a creation deity which must spend part of the year in the underworld) because of the fact that it returns to an orbit inside of Pluto's orbit part for part of its orbit and for part of the orbit it must be outside Pluto's orbit. Persephone happened to be taken to the underworld by Hades, who happens to be Pluto in Roman mythology. Astonomers like things tidy like that. That said, since they are unsure of the defintion of a planet, they have yet to apply a name to Xena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrl build (talk • contribs)

Gracias.

chocolateboy 11:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Pop

Wow someone had an issue with you and the GNAA. Anyway, I was trying to contact you because you seem to have done a lot of research in bastard pop and I am making a film that touches on this subject. Could you please contact me: brett@etherworks.ca

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.136.201 (talk • contribs)

My name

Thank you for your compliments of my name :D. The story behind it is a bit weird: I was stuck for something to call myself, and it was the first gripe that came to my head when I was registering. I originally thought that it was overlong, but just went for it. If dastardly grammar did not come to my mind, I could have been called something weird like 'Damn the Cashew-Raisin balance.'

I always liked the name 'Can't sleep, clown will eat me' too. Clowns have always freaked me out. When I was younger, I knew this guy who was 'Stalo the Communist Clown' at day, and a drug-pusher by night. It was very traumatic. Besides, you can't help but wonder what they're keeping under those noses. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kev

surely the fact that kev now redirects to the chav page means that it is a regional variation of chav and therefore should be put in 2 the regional variations section and seeing as kev isnt referenced in the article now it should be else the redirect is pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.152.12 (talk • contribs)

Hi.

As you can see from the talk page, I looked for respectable references for "Kev", but couldn't find any. There's no consensus there to merge "Kev", which is what that unsourced "synonym" would amount to. If you can find a reputable source (e.g. a dictionary) that lists "Kev" as a synonym of "chav", then go for it. And, no, Wikipedia redirects don't "prove" or "mean" anything. Wikipedia (obviously) isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.

chocolateboy 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[10] (I know its original research) is the best I can do so far but with 24,600 English pages for pages with kev and chav on them most of them being blogs so far it will take me a long time 2 find nethin. Speaking of which chav was only added 2 the dictionary fairly recently [11] so should the article have even existed before then 195.188.152.12 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Michael Quinion article is borderline IMO (a lot of things in Chav, particularly in its earlier incarnations, were drawn from it). I've considered linking to it before, but I figured there was no need when we have so many tabloids, broadsheets and dictionaries chattering about "chavs". Technically, his site is a blog; he just happens to be a blogger with decent credentials. [12] [13] I'm not convinced that it's a reliable source for "Kev", though, as it uncritically enumerates a load of bogus "chav" synonyms copy 'n' pasted from ChavScum. It's certainly a less reliable source for etymology and usage than the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary and the Collins English Dictionary.

Should the article have existed before "chav" was added to the dictionary? Why not? As the article says, it's been in wide use since 2004. [14] The dictionary entries are relevant to the etymology section, but they aren't a prerequisite for the article as a whole. If they were, the article would belong on Wiktionary, not here. The bulk of the article is about the "chav" stereotype.

chocolateboy 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoon

It's going the same way that chav did at one point. A "vehicle modification" section has just been added. See Talk:hoon. Uncle G 20:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done and done. chocolateboy 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted L. Nancy

Although it is widely believed that Chocolateboy likes to clip his toenails at the break of dawn, this may be a tricky ploy to draw people's attention away from the proven fact that he is actually a booger.

Do you notice how the word "widely" doesn't really tell us anything if you don't provide a point of reference?

"Wide" in comparison to what? What number constitutes a "wide" composition? This kind of writing drives me nuts. Ted L. Nancy should write to people who write like this. He should SINGLE those writers out and COMMEND them!

Have you read the Ted L. Nancy letters?

HeWhoE 09:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources aplenty for that statement in the linked articles, but I've added another one inline.

The original source was a Reuters report from 23 May 2002:

The ABC network has ordered a pilot episode for a comedy series based on the wacky "Letters from a Nut" books by the mysterious Ted L. Nancy, widely suspected to be Seinfeld's nom de plume. [15]

Unfortunately, it is no longer online.

chocolateboy 10:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely suspected that this Reuters journalist should be SINGLED out and COMMENDED! I congratulate him on exemplary writing! Thank you, Reuters journalist! You set a good example for all the aspiring young journalists who read your articles. You are an inspiration to all of us!

HeWhoE 06:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens vs. En Dashes

Hmm... I would repectfully suggest that you are misreading that paragraph. It says "The following five dash styles are currently in use on Wikipedia. Please do not change them to reflect your preference." (My emphasis.) "Them" in this sentence means the following five styles, i.e., if you encounter one of the five styles, don't change it to one of the other styles, or to something else. Using a hyphen-minus as a substitute for an en dash is not listed as one of the five styles. I don't think they meant "never edit anything to do with dashes". Feel free to prove me wrong, but otherwise I will continue to make this edit. —Chowbok 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It explicitly says do not change any of the following five styles, and includes the humble hyphen (which it clearly says is "considered an en dash") as the fifth item in that list:

A single spaced hyphen - like this. This is considered an en dash rendered in the same "typewriter" style as the double hyphen for em dashes, above.

It also explicitly states on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) that:

Ranges of dates are given with a spaced or unspaced hyphen or en dash (–).

This policy was arrived at after long discussion, and its intent is clear as far as I can see: don't annoy other editors by changing their dash preferences. Hyphens are the de facto standard on Wikipedia, so changing them to en dashes is likely to sow wikidiscontent among the majority of editors, which, presumably, is not your intention.

chocolateboy 06:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I missed that because of the bad example. Why are they using a hyphen replacing an em dash to illustrate using a hyphen to replace an en dash? That's annoying.

Anyway, if that's policy, I won't violate it, although I think it's a bit misguided (somewhat akin to saying "if somebody writes 'thru', you must not change it to 'through'"). —Chowbok 07:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

...reverting the talk page on Ann Coulter. I'd not like to have to do it, but I'll block you for vandalism and disruption just the same as I did the original author if you revert once more. Talk pages are for discussing article content, not for making silly attacks -- or for edit warring in an attempt to retain silly attacks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you won't. In fact, you've already violated the 3 revert rule. Frivolity is not vandalism; talk pages are not articles; we don't censor "jokes", however unfunny they may be; and the editor, unlike yourself ("trolling") and Derex ("effing"), discussed his or her position in a perfectly non-inflammatory way here.

chocolateboy 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try me. 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolity is not vandalism. You also deleted Derex's response, which doesn't fall into either category.

chocolateboy 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is not frivolity. Without the original comments Derex's were out of place, but he's welcome to put them back if he likes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you deleted was not libelous (take a look at Wikipedia:No legal threats before attempting to pursue that non-argument to its unwikipedian conclusion). Two people (me and Phiwum [16]) questioned the deletion of that piece of silliness from the talk page (and explained our objections), and two people disagreed. It's an inane point that has often been raised before and has, just as often, been discreetly ignored, leaving the questioner to ponder their slender grasp of relevance. Looks like a civil disagreement to me, spoiled only by a misguided invocation of an empty and embarrassing banning threat. You might also, in the light of this comment, want to take a look at Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies, and the comments (wherever they are) about administrators being humble janitors rather than deluded despots.

chocolateboy 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Filth and the Fury

Ta for the 'ooooo', i've been on a little diversion doing some music/film articles and that one was crying out for an expansion. Unless you can think of anything to add, i'd say that's about it cracked?Logan1138 16:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so :-) chocolateboy 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holmes

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chav and Wigger

Hi, just saw your most recent edit on Wigger. I can understand your edit removing chav so prominently from the first paragraph, but removed from the article altogether? You're stating that it's your opinion that chav is totally unrelated to Wigger? I guess I just don't understand. Personally, I don't know anything about chav other than what's in the chav writeup, but based on that, the two seem at least tangentally related. Love to hear why I'm wrong, though as this topic fascinates me. -Dwiki 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dwiki.

Please see the prior discussions here, here, here and here.

chocolateboy 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I think the chav article should make it clear in the first paragraph that the moniker applies to people of all races, if that is in fact the case. I still think a chav link somewhere on wigger could be helpful, if just to contrast wigger, but it would seem that chav is as disputed of a concept as wigger, at least on Wikipedia. Certainly, I love them both ;) -Dwiki 22:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs pointing out in the intro. "Chav" is (considered to be) a slightly less verboten synonym for "prole" or "oik". As Secretlondon points out, it's the term du jour for "working class" or "urban poor". The articles on those subjects don't (and, to my mind, obviously shouldn't) waste time clarifying the truism that their subjects may be black, white, lime green or polka dot.

The fact that "chav" does not have racial connotations is already mentioned in the body of the article.

chocolateboy 22:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes on a Plane

you are not helping things. Flamming him when i'm doing my best to get him to back down so wikipedians here can work our magic on the article is counter productive. just shut up. dposse 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on the talk page. You are not helping. See the copious evidence I provided for sockpuppetry, talk page vandalism and disruption before reaching for the flamethrower. While I prefer the version of the disputed section that you keep reverting to (in violation of the 3 revert rule), I thoroughly disagree with almost everything you've said on the talk page, and with your manner of saying it. I strongly suggest that you, Guerillafilm and I let everyone else have their say.

chocolateboy 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Snakes on a Plane

You may be right that GF is engaging in sockpuppetry, but that's still no justification for a 3RR violation. That's my only interest here. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entourage

I wanted to thank you for your contributions to the Entourage related articles and I wanted to let you know that there is currently a proposal to form an Entourage related WikiProject. If you would be interested in joining such an endeavor please add your name to the proposal and the temporary project page. Argash | talk | contribs 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your Entourage proposal. I'm too lazy to formally commit to it, but I'm enjoying tweaking your wonderful episode articles! Thank you.

chocolateboy 10:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dawkins...

Ah, right... the guidlines also say, however, that punctuation should go before, not after, a ref. (Can't find where now). SO... the comma should be after the " but before the ref. So many damned rules!! Will go fix :) Mikker ^(...) 03:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it... Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags: "The ref tag should be placed directly after most punctuation marks". Mikker ^(...) 03:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Quest

Thanks dude! I'm glad we can now get all our Viking Quest info in one location.

Steve 13:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the Holy Mother of Keep!

As soon as I read that, I remembered the vote even though it's been going on nearly two years since I voted on it. Regarding the guy who nominated it: The nincompoop's only two edits in all that time were to that article and to the discussion. Hasn't been back since. It reminded me of a vote I did that some troll had begun regarding his nomination of a character from Shakespeare as "non-notable" since the character didn't exist in real life. Such is the wonder of Wikipedia! Thanks for the very nice note and the verbal Barnstar! - Lucky 6.9 15:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes on a Plane Refs

If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the citation style used should be that of the first major contributor.

When sources are mentioned within the body of an article, it is helpful to identify them clearly on the first mention. For example, this would mean including the first name and surname, that is, the full name the person usually uses. Even better is to include some information about the person's relevant background, such as, "John Smith, a history professor at Yale University, writes that ..."

71.208.89.57 23:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an objection to being called out on your sockpuppetry, I strongly suggest you take it up with an administrator. I'm sure they'll be sympathetic to your arguments [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Certainly your unilateral POV and anonymous grasp of Wikipedia arcana [22] speak volumes for your bona fides.

As for the refs: they are there to staunch the constant stream of POV vandalism by you. The first comment you cited has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand (it's about formatting). The second: captions aren't meant to be essays designed to appease sockpuppets, but if they were, I would have no problem with: "Samuel L. Jackson delivering the film's famous (according to Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, mtv.com, and The Chicago Sun-Times inter alia) catch phrase".

chocolateboy 00:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

If you're reporting another case for sockpuppetry you need to start a new request rather than updating a closed one. The way to do it is to change the report name to <sockpuppetmaster> (2nd) So in the case of Guerilla films you'd change the report to Guerillafilms (2nd). I've gone ahead and reverted your edits to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Guerillafilm so you can create a proper 2nd report. Thanks! --Bobblehead 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do. Ta.

chocolateboy 02:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes on a Plane Sockpuppet

See User talk:Chocolateboy/Snakes on a Plane.

chocolateboy 02:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt Sting Pain Index

Agreed it was slightly experimental to add in a lot of links. Could it be that you removed too many - link to bee, wasp etc. I've put in a compromise. What I'm more interested in is getting more information from the original scale, if you have that. cheers Widefox 12:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]