User talk:Daniel/Archive/37

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

← Archive 36 · Archive 37 · Archive 38 →

User Talk Page

Yes Please, Is there anyway to get it deleted thou? DXRAW 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the edit history must be preserved, because you aren't the only significant editor (and hence the theory of WP:CSD#G7, which mutated into WP:CSD#U1, doesn't apply). I've blanked and protected it per your request. If you want me to add a note to it, or to unprotect it in the future, please leave a message here. Cheers, Daniel 10:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private mediation

I don't know what this means or what I should do.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private mediation is done on the Mediation Committee's own private Wiki, commonly referred to as "MedComWiki". It's basically the same as Wikipedia, and has the same setup, yet only you guys can see the proceedings (it's locked for viewing for only the parties and the mediator). The reason I'm recommending private mediation was that it was suggested on our mailing list, due to the combination of a large number of parties, and these parties being experienced contributors in many cases. We deliberately use private mediation so that non-involved editors will not being able to see the proceedings, and for other advantageous reasons as noted at WP:M#The privileged nature of mediation.

What you have to do to get an account so you can take part as a party? Simple :) Click this email link, and send me an email. Include "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" somewhere in the subject, e.g. "Private wiki account request for Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)", and I'll email you back with your account details (username and password) on MedComWiki within the next couple of days (ie. when all the parties have emailed me), so you can get access to the mediation pages, and we can all get started.

I hope this helps, and if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers, Daniel 10:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Woodfull

GAC material I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I've got some feedback for it first, if you list it there. Daniel 09:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done, but maybe I might have just addressed them. In any case, "that's stumps and time for a glass of something chilled"...except that the monkey teetotals. Anyway, goodnight. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left at Talk:Bill Woodfull; all pretty minor, really. Daniel 09:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attended to. Hopefully a good start to a better year (one yr of monkey admin teror)Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He he. All looks proper, so I'll move it to GA it in a sec. Cheers, Daniel 06:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Hi. I am trying to get into the evolution article that it is both fact and fiction. I have 2 sources that it is and I can find more. I have started a thread on the evolution talk page. I am wondering if you can give your oppinion there. Peace:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to, thanks. Sorry, Daniel 07:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need help Please

Daniel, we need help in one article wii. We need someone to decide if a link can stay or go. Thanks -- Alfiboy 01:11, May 29, 2007

Per the number of comments on ANI about the issue (the initial thread was about the block of a couple of participants, including yourself), I can only suggest you follow the dispute resolution guidelines. I will not immerse myself in a dispute like that unless I'm doing so formally, for an RfM. Daniel 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

Also need help on what to do about Arvand Rud? How to connect with that link? You may email me. UTAFA 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your email, via email. Daniel 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall-out of User:DXRAW

Daniel, I think that an article I wrote was 'dudded' if not saboutaged by User:DXRAW who, I note, has now cleaned house and left Wikipedia, with your recent Mod assistance. The article, on Stan Grant (Wiradjuri elder) (who is not personally known to me) was submitted for speedy deletion by DXRAW. It was deleted under that process. I can not know DXRAW's reasoning for the speedy deletion -- he did not answer me -- and he is no longer around to answer for himself. I am aware of Stan Grant's importance as an Australian Aboriginal elder (also see Stan Grant (journalist)) and consider the older Grant to be worthy of a Wikipedia article in his own right. Some of the reasoning is available in a related article, for Dr John Rudder, dealing with some of the Wiradjuri language material. It's a silly thought, perhaps, but I hope that DXRAW does not have a cultural or racial 'thing' against Australian Aboriginal people. (I did not accuse him of this in my post to his now-gone Talk page, even though it was in my mind at the time.) I would appreciate your advice and help in understanding whether the Grant article could be reinstated or whether I should just document Grant under Rudder, Wiradjuri language and his son's articles. With thanks, - Peter Ellis - Talk 06:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted by Eagle 101 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under WP:CSD#A7. Upon first review, I personally don't feel it meets such criteria, and I wouldn't have deleted it if I came across it on CSD patrol. I'll contact the administrator who deleted it privately in a second to get his view on whether it could be undeleted (as I'd rather not summarily overturn the actions of another administrator wherever possible), in case I missed something when evaluating the deleted edits. Cheers, Daniel 06:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. My apologies for this, but I can't undelete it today. Do you mind if any action I take can be delayed for twenty-four hours, so I can quickly have a chat with Eagle? Daniel 06:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Chatting with Eagle now. Daniel 07:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting now - "Just undo it - I don't fuss about that shit, I trust you". Well, it's his head if he wants to trust me... :) Cheers, Daniel 07:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and User:Eagle 101, for your attention to this matter. I will reward this by making a truly worthy article (though perhaps not a Featured article :-) out of it. - Peter Ellis - Talk 06:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

What is your e-mail address? Please assign me a user-name for for the mediation website. AlexanderPar 11:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Alexander's user talk page. Daniel 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've taken over my mediation account. AlexanderPar 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, David. Daniel 10:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help on a deletion

The administrator User:^demon ^demon has deleted the page belonging to Secure Computing Corporation and I would like to reverse the deletion. He has told me I should contact another administrator to look at the page and say whether it deserves deletion. I would like to preserve the page if only so that it can get fixed, assuming there really was something wrong about it. It used to be a reasonable page and as far as I knew it did not consist of marketing junk. It was developed over a couple of years by several contributors, myself included.

Personally I think deletion in such a case is a bit like killing a child for rude behavior instead of applying corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptosmith (talk • contribs) 22:47, May 31, 2007 (UTC

Please link me to the discussion you had with ^demon, as well as provide a link to the now-deleted article. Daniel 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

Hi Daniel. How much longer would this fellow mediator of yours like the Falun Gong case to remain linked from {{ArbComOpenTasks}}? Picaroon (Talk) 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno - as long as possible? Daniel 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Borrowing" your table

Hey there Daniel! You have a great table over at List of Queensland Roar FC players, and I'm wondering if it's cool to use it for a little project I'm working on. As you can see, I've tried to incorporate it to my own specifications, but I just wanted to make sure that it's OK to use the format. If not, feel free to just revert my last change. If it's cool, thanks in advance! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can! :) Cheers, Daniel 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent. Thanks a lot mate! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems! Cheers, Daniel 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVER

Thanks Daniel, I hadn't run into that before. Cheers. Pedro | Chat 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems (I was just leaving you a note as you left this one). Cheers, Daniel 10:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I saw you response on my watch list so posted back to you. Just to confirm I have sent the oversight request via e-mail now - thanks for clarifying that policy - We learn a bit more each day !! Again, many thanks - I'm a bit in awe that the legendary Daniel has left a message on humble talk page!! :). Pedro | Chat 11:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Daniel? Since when? :) I think you may be confusing me with someone else... Cheers, Daniel 11:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyday that you get a message from a mediator/admin (possibly arbitrator later...) On another matter altogether, this mediation case has been delayed for a long time. Might it be a wise idea to hold it in the MedComWiki? --Dark Falls ^talk 12:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see myself being an arbitrator anytime in the next millenium. About that mediation, I placed it "on hold" last month, per this. There's no pressing need for MedComWiki, and the delay is deliberate. Thanks for the note anyways, and cheers, Daniel 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but I have a strange feeling that one of its participants will start edit warring as soon as the block expires, so I thought that if the mediation gets over as soon as possible, that'll be prevented. --Dark Falls ^talk 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to assume good faith and attempt to continue mediation, as they have both indicated they are happy to comprimise. Daniel 12:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified.

Regards, WilyD

My RfA

Dan, I was just editing the same page to explain a truer meaning, and my edit to my previous statement. An edit conflict came up, and I knew it was you. I have no bad intentions, the last thing I would do is provoke conflict with another editor (especially you) doing his bit to build consensus. Were all on the same side. Regards, Dfrg.msc 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Daniel 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Collaboration of the Month

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Nuclear magnetic resonance.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse _work 19:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-mediation

Could you swing by if you have a moment? Armedblowfish is keen to speak to you... WjBscribe 00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just logged on :) Daniel 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Mediator Nomination

I feel that the comments made state how one would percieve my actions without an explanation. I am not trying to break any rules here but accomplish a goal set by pretty much all of the users at Wikipedia and that is to keep it running properly. I may make some quick and harsh moves but only to keep this website from vandals, trolls, "sockpuppets", etc. In order to do that, you need to "lay down the law" when necessary! My intentions were fine. I intended to work well with the administrators and (not on the nomination page orginally) to resolve conflicts to the best of my ability. I know what a mediator is. A mediator intervenes in conflicts when deemed necessary in order to settle a dispute that cannot otherwise be settled between the individuals involved.

Another disappointing thing that I found, which may or may not have been written by yourself, was the fact that I would be a "embarrassment" to Wikipedia if I was nominated. I find that COMPLETELY insulting! I mean, to go as far as to say that I am an "embarrassment"! If you were not the user that posted that comment, then this may not matter to you. But if you are, I would like to say that I am sorry that you feel that way about me. I only try to accomplish the goal that all at Wikipedia share and that is to keep this site running properly (as mentioned in the previous paragraph). Yes, I may go too far but all in good faith. I've seen user talk pages with many warnings and threats for blocks and none have been following through! Wikipedia wouldn't have vandals at all if people just gave the user a maximum of three warnings and then following through with a block or at least a suspension. You see, all of my contributions and actions on Wikipedia are not destructive or disruptive but in an attempt to keep this site clean! Redsox04 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said you'd be an embarrasment to the Mediation Committee. We have a proud history which dates back to 2004, just as long as the Arbitration Committee. You also still refuse to accept the fact that you cannot block people, because the community (quite rightly, in my opinion) has not expressed their trust in you, and I stand by my statement that your net gain to the Committee if you were to become a member would be negative at this time. Daniel 04:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on My RfA

Dear Daniel, Thank you for your comments on my RfA. I feel that you are doing an excellent job of presenting both sides, however, I would appreciate some comments on not only where I have been wrong in my edits, but on how to not repeat the same mistake and how to improve. Regards, Dfrg.msc 07:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to talk to you after your RfA. I do not believe that the conditions surrounding you are particularily suited to such discussions at the present. Daniel 07:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shatt al-Arab mediation

Since I've heard nothing recently concerning the Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) RfM, I'm assuming it remains on hold – contrary to your last statement posted there – pending responses from the two other editors, one of whom is on wikibreak. As it happens, I'll be out-of-pocket myself for most of the time beginning the middle of next week through the end of the first week of July. Since I've never participated in this sort of mediation before, I'm unfamiliar with the next steps. Is there anything I could be preparing during the time I have remaining before flying (literally) hither, thither and yon? Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've had to close the RfM as two parties have withdrawn their assent to mediation. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) for more information. Cheers, and sorry about that - I dunno where you go from here, really...maybe another RfC? Daniel 07:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shatt al-Arab

It's a shame that the mediation attempt has failed and I am not sure how this can be taken forward if one side refuses to even discuss the matter.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only suggest another article RfC, to solicit outside input (and, unlike mediation, it does not require compulsory input from the parties, although it is desirable and in their best interests). Sorry, I would have loved to continue, but I have little choice in the matter. Daniel 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it due to the fact that many of the parties still had not signed the private wiki or was it because someone explicitly bowed out? -- tariqabjotu 11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone explicitly stated they no longer wanted to continue mediation. Daniel 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify that someone? On a side note, you assigned me a username and pass for the private mediation site last week, but I am still unable to view the "waterway" page due my username's lack of permission. I left you a message about this on your talk page on the private mediation website. AlexanderPar 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various things changed on-wiki during that time, including the name of the mediation namespace. In all likelihood, I'll be disabling the existing accounts in a few days, unless a way of continuing the mediation comes to light :(. Thanks, Martinp23 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:M and confidentiality, and the wishes of the person who withdrew from mediation, I will not be identifying that person. Daniel 02:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Serbia

Sorry to say but my thinking is that mediation will not be possible. On 1 side you have myself which thinking is confirmed with this (and security council resolutions):

91st plenary meeting 18 December 1992

..."2. Strongly condemns Serbia, Montenegro and Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for violation of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and their non-compliance with existing resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the London Peace Accords of August 1992;

On other side you have Serbian talibans which do not have any sources which say different but they say that Serbia has not attacked Bosnia (and Croatia) and there has been civil war. 1 day I will break 3RR rule and after I am blocked, I will go to Croatian and Bosnian wikipedia asking for help. Then there will be full war on that page.

Only position of agreement (for me) is that in text History of Serbia nothing is writen about wars in Bosnia and Croatia for peace of us all. -Rjecina 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have come to one sort of agreement but .... Panonian is accepting that UN has made resolution (there have been many resolutions) in which United Nations are saying that Serbia and Montenegro has attacked Bosnia and Herzegovina, but he do not allow that something like this is writen because his personal thinking is that UN resolution is POV and his thinking is right ! Because in wikipedia personal thinking is not important can you please use your powers on articles History of Serbia and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to return version of article where is writen that Serbia (on article History of Serbia) and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (on this article) has made aggression against Bosnia and Croatia. His words in which he accept that UN has made this resolution you can find on discussion page of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. -Rjecina 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not believe Mediation would be effective, or you do not wish to take part, please note as such at the RfM page by saying "Disagree" and signing your name in the appropriate section. The decision is entirely yours, and no-one can force you into it. Daniel 07:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Fox

I am contacting you because I am running out of ideas here. There is a user (User:Dcrcort) who mostly edits Vicente Fox and exclusively to contribute with positive information, often exaggerated, often with no sources. Six users expressed their disapproval of the overall content with half of them describing the article like propaganda. Most of them attempted to modify the article but Dcrcort kept edit-warring them until the page became protected on April 21. I come into picture and offer to put together a to-do-list. I and two other editors completed it and in the last week I have attempted to enter the information. Dcrcort has repeatedly removed the content and has even contributed through Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dcrcort. Now I got to block one for 3RR, but I cannot possibly do much anymore as he switches IPs and then logs in, so each individual IP or his username has at the most two reverts per 24 hour period.

I have tried to reason with him and the anonymous IPs but he and the IPs have resulted in name-calling and lots of "lol", that are closing to exhausting my patience here. You may see how well the discussion went in the Vicente Fox talk page and this user's talk page. The worst thing is that a few of his ideas are not bad, but it is hard to distinguish from all the stubbornness and reverts. --FateClub 01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, given the amount of apparent disruption that this user is causing per your above statement, a request for comment about this users' conduct would be justified. If you decide to take this path, please drop me a note and I'll investigate the matter further, and also add a comment at the RfC. Cheers, Daniel 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA close error?

I don't follow, Daniel. What did I do? -- Cecropia 06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems that PeaceNT (talk · contribs) fixed it up whilst I was writing. Sorry for bothering you :) Daniel 06:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism by Country mediation

I suppose it's fair to assume that since no mediator would take on the case that we're out of luck regardless. The "lack of activity" on the talk page isn't the result of resolution, merely that it's been a long time during which there's been progressively less to say. The page has now been locked for three months and it seems unlikely to change anytime soon - it's very difficult as an editor to address such spurious objections. Anyways, thanks anyhow, I'll see if Gorilla Mediation or someone won't take it on. Cheers Wily D 13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shame [1] It seems that a certain group of editors is determined to get their way on every article related to Iran and is refusing to engage in mediation and at times sabotaging a mediation attempt they have agreed to. It is sheer arrogance and disruptiveness. I don't know why admins think this situation can continue to go on in every single article on Iran where there is an editorial controversy. It is the rule of the mob and admins are not doing their job in mediating and controlling the situation. None of them want to deal with more complex editorial problems and prefer the easier editorial disuptes. In the end, more time will be wasted by this apathy.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is unfortunate, but when parties "refus[e] to engage in mediation and at times sabotag[e] a mediation attempt they have agreed to", it makes mediation impossible to continue with. Although we at the Committee would have loved to have helped resolve this, some of the parties have made this impossible. Daniel 23:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mediation nomination request

I understand that my nomination request is denied, but what does 'I am envoking my right to private reasoning on this vote (see this). For Committee members, see our private mailing list. Daniel 06:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)' mean, could i be told? -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that my justification for voting oppose was not recorded on-wiki. I explained by reasoning for voting oppose, and my reason for keeping the vote private, to my fellow members via our private mailing list. Daniel 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Daniel Bryant.jpg

Friend of yours or freak coincidence? :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, no :) It seems like another Australian Daniel Bryant, but from Victoria. Thanks for the note - I'm still chuckling (for the record, my nose does not look like that...), Daniel 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]