User talk:Dweller/Archive 14

WP:RDTOTW nomination

I nominate... Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Classic_code_.26_magic_constants. This isn't a funny thread, but it was SO. HELPFUL. to me I just had to nominate it. There's a lot of excellent content in there, and I think it deserves a proper reward! As your bribery, I've taken the possible bannination upon myself to create for you a cross-namespace redirect to your project. --ffroth 05:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My work at Norwich City F.C.

why couldnt you have lefted it alone because i made it all neat and tidy made it presentable and now it looks like a mess again.....

i think this userbox is wot i am trying to put across

This user HATES it when his work or pictures get deleted.

thanks Screechy 10:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you should be aware this is a wiki and as such there's no such thing as "your" work, it's "our" work. Nobody owns anything here... The Rambling Man 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Before the storm

Just wanted to say, hope it's a good game! The Rambling Man 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well on that performance it's hard to imagine how you could be bottom. Our keeper was man of the match by a mile. Just a shame that Derby Dan didn't lift the ball just a couple of inches higher with five mins to go... Oh well, we're up to fourth, you're still bottom, but as you say, grounds for optimism! The Rambling Man 17:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics

Following your guidance in your lesson on FAC, I've been trying to develop List of basic geography topics to FLC status at WP:FLC. The way consensus is determined there seems to differ a little from the rules over at WP:AFD, but other than not mentioning that, your lesson seems to be spot on, and has helped immensely.

I skipped peer review :-), and went straight for featured status. The feedback has been first rate. I didn't realize how much the list could be improved until the blokes at FLC started pointing them out.

But the well seems to be running dry.

Someone pointed out that the list is not complete. I've been working on it so long that I've become snow blind and cannot see any gaps in essential coverage.

Would you please have a look? What is missing?

We're also having a bit of trouble determining what level of sourcing would be appropriate for this kind of list. Since most of the topics obviously pertain to geography, it seems pedantic to provide citations for every single item on the list as featured status convention and WP:VER imply. That would be more work than it is worth (there are many of these lists which are under development, and if the requirements are too stringent, it could slow down their improvement to a crawl -- well, slower than that, because their development is already at a crawl now). One person believes the list needs sources, the rest don't think that is very important, due to the nature of the list. We need to come to a reasonable conclusion, one that serves Wikipedia in the best way possible, and my bias is obviously to support rapid development. But, I want to make sure that this doesn't adversely affect quality, which is why I've contacted you. And since you are familiar with featured status requirements, how they relate to policy, and how policy relates to them, I believe you would be able to help identify the issues and weigh the reasons better than most.

Scorpion has pointed out some things that need sourcing. He has not demanded that everything be sourced. So it raises the issue on how to determine what needs sourcing and what doesn't, to set a precedent for the dozens of lists of this type to follow. Getting this worked out now will provide a guide on how to develop the lists, and avoid some of the costs of the trial by error approach on the rest of them.

Another sticking point and confounding issue, with respect to policy and how it applies, is the term "basic" in the title of this list and in the titles of the others in the set known as the Lists of basic topics. Some feel that what makes something "basic" is that it is obvious. The main purpose of these lists is to provide a general overview of a subject in a "cheat sheet" format, to make it easy for relative beginners to explore the subjects. The formatting, the order of presentation, the inclusion of pics, etc. all reflect that, but this needs to apply to content as well. WP:OR looms overhead, and that dirty word has been used to describe one or more of these lists in the past, so this issue shouldn't be ignored here. Is compiling a list of obvious elements of a subject "original research"? This brings us back to the sourcing issue. Do we really need to provide citations on what makes them obvious? In addition to presenting a topical treatment on their respective subjects, these lists are part of Wikipedia's table of contents system and as navigation aids they are integral to finding one's way around Wikipedia, as are categories (which have no sourcing requirements).

We need someone to help untangle this mess and provide sound guidance on the treatment of this type of list. I can think of nobody as qualified as you in featured status matters.

Please help.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Budgie HoF

Firstly, I can't imagine Norwich have ever had that many "famous" players - ITFC's hall of fame has four players! Anyway, yes, I'll have a few points to raise, I'll do it when I get home if you don't mind, just after that cold shower...! The Rambling Man 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol. I agree... can't understand why they stretched it to 100 (then 110)... notable oddities that come from recentism include Kenton, Adams and Marshall. Ho hum. But we don't make the world, we just record it. Enjoy the shower. --Dweller 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Right then...

• "sortable, alphabetical" - might not be alphabetical if it's resorted.
• Obviously you'll en-dash.
• I hate centrally justified names. Left align that lot.
• Not sure about the A, B, C types. I think we can come up with something more elegant (although how, I'm not sure yet...maybe pastel shading?!).
• "ref name" the hall of fame page from EDP.
• Stats for the first 100 come from EDP, what about the most recent 10?

Those are the sort of things I'd bring up at a peer review. And perhaps we need a bit of expansion on the lead (and few less single-sentence paragraphs) but that shouldn't be hard. Helpful? Hope so... The Rambling Man 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't currently even have the names for the extra 10, let alone a RS. Waiting for the club website to help, but I'm not exactly optimistic... after all, last time, they cobbled my work, lol. Pastel shading will make it more obscure. Everything else... groovy. --Dweller 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "cute"?! The Rambling Man 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Bexfield

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Patrick Bexfield, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Oo7565 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with prod. In fact, I've speedied it myself. --Dweller 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New FAC

Yes I do. Yes. Definitely. Nothing too cute though, overly distracting. So what's it to be? The Rambling Man 10:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What about one of your NCFC legends? The Rambling Man 10:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. What about someone like Chris Sutton? A decent career, some local knowledge, we'd need a picture but I can work on it? Alternatively we could drag another FC article to FA, like Colchester United, something reasonably local? The Rambling Man 11:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I'm hopeless at making decisions unless there's a cute girl around, perhaps you should decide...! The Rambling Man 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I may have spoken too soon... Can't find anything suitable on either Flickr or Commons. Hmm.. rethink... The Rambling Man 11:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Hmm. Maybe the club article is easier? Not sure anymore.. ! The Rambling Man 12:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is lame, I know, but you choose. I've got five featured articles/lists relating to Town, we really need to push City a bit more, I reckon it needs to be someone like Gunny, Mike Walker(!), Delia Smith... whadddyareckon? The Rambling Man 16:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, downselected to Gunn or Peters. Peters probably has wider interest... photo opp? The Rambling Man 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Champions statue.jpg is a starter for 10... The Rambling Man 17:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so a starter for nine maybe. This is better and could be my next "Flickr conquest"... a few images of Gunny (wow, he's "out of shape" - if he ever had one!) on Flickr, all needing to be gently massaged to meet Creative Commons licences, nothing my mellifluous tongue (or touch-typing fingers) can't handle I'm sure... Peters a little more challenging (beside the statue). The Rambling Man 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Basic topics

Hi TT. You've asked some tough questions, which is why I've taken time to answer them.

As you point out to me, you nowhere define "basic topics" (or wikilink to a definition). Create your own definition for this list (read on for how).

I think the fundamental question is neither comprehensiveness, nor RS, but actually POV. In other words, who says that these are the basic topics, not others (excluded) or that the ones listed are indeed basic topics that shouldn't be removed from the listing. At first glance I spotted Mental mapping and thought, "hmm, interesting, but is that a fundamental topic of Geography?". Maybe it is. And maybe it isn't. A Featured List cannot be subject to POV... and this is. So, how do you tackle the POV?

Now, I actually think that answering this question (if it's possible to do so) will answer the RS question too... as you need to find an RS that lists something that approximates to a list of basic geography topics.

And of course, it also answers the comprehensiveness issue too, as anything in your RS should be in, and anything else should not.

The list of notable geographers is, once more, totally POV and should be struck, unless you can find a RS that lists a "top X geographers of all time".

All the other issues you raise are minor tweaks by contrast with this all-encompassing problem. Crack it first, I'd suggest.

Hope that's helpful. --Dweller 10:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC) PS The External links section is too horrible for words. And the See also is very odd.

Mental mapping is one of the 18 National Geography Standards of the National Council for Geographic Education.

The geographer section is intended to list some examples, to get the reader started. How is that POV? I gathered them from Wikipedia's history of geography article.

What is horrible about the External Links section?

And what is odd about the see also section?

The Transhumanist 12:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

HoF list

Hey, just had a thought, you should really use the {{sortname}} template rather than piping names in reverse order. I know it's a pain but that's the best way forward. Plus, if you add "align=left|" (or similar!) then you avoid the dirty central justification which is currently applied... The Rambling Man 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't be at all offended if you step in... and apart from the "missing 10", I'm done with adding names! --Dweller 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow I thought you might say that!! Okay, well that'll mean I can't support it's FLC but at least I'll get one pokey bit of the star once it gets there.... The Rambling Man 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've happily supported noms when I've played a minor part in sharpening it, rather than being a major contributor. Don't feel obliged to help though I certainly won't talk you out of doing legwork! --Dweller 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, well I've fixed up the sortnames, corrected all the en-dash probs, what more can I do? The Rambling Man 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite fancy Martin Peters, in a manner of speaking, - may need paper sources.... The Rambling Man 11:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can dig out what it says about him in Canary Citizens and I think the EDP centenary site and Canaries sites will both have stuff. Wouldn't be surprised if some West Ham RS have plenty of good material too. But... photo? --Dweller 11:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a reply...

...on my talk page. The Transhumanist 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You have nominated a recently successful WP:FL. There have been two recent proposals to begin a List of the Day feature on the main page, which have both received majorities but have not been approved as overwhelming support sufficient for the main page. WP:LOTDP is a new proposal to try to get the ball rolling based on the original proposal. You can voice your thoughts on its talk page. Basically, what the proposal entails is attempting to run an official trial, and then vote after the trial run on whether to change the main page. Support to run a trial requires much less consensus than support to change the main page. Should we succeed at eventually getting such a feature on the main page it would tentatively look like this. Whether or not you support an experimental trial or not you should come discuss the matter at WP:LOTDP's talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of 79.64.34.11

I saw you blocked 79.64.34.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for persistent "gay" vandalism. The guy only had 4 edits that weren't to his talk, and while I don't deny one of those was disruptive, the others were good faith. Could you have got the wrong guy? mattbuck 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Iwan Roberts

Hey. For his Wales stats, I've looked him up at playerhsitory.com, which is pretty reliable, and states he scored two goals. And also looking in the PFA book, I can see he has one cap for the Wales B team, but, annoyingly, it doesn't give international goals at any level. Thanks, Mattythewhite 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting since the RSSSF link that I added seemed, on a quick first glimpse, to indicate no goals at all. But I'll double check that... The Rambling Man 16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both. This is, as I thought, a bit of a mess. I think if we do want to cite he scored 2 goals, we'll need to find the actual matches, to avoid conflict with people counter-citing Soccerbase etc. --Dweller 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section to the talk page. RSSSF is highly detailed (down to min of sub on/off, min of goals etc) and says 15 apps, 0 goals. Check it out. The Rambling Man 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Batteries

There was no link to that discussion on the page itself, but there was this rather ambiguous message "Please do not delete this page as it contains information related to a company that does not exist and therefore is not for a use of publicity." it seemed that that this was information that was added as part of a school project and was maybe of a fictional nature (that doesn't exist?) as well as failing to establish any particular notability, (with it being borderline at best) so I userfied it and created a sub-page with the material, (to avoid losing anything that may be important part of the project) this is detailed in the user's talk page. That's pretty much it, if you want to recreate it I won't contend your desicion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even tough, are we sure this is real? a quick search shows [1] no direct references to this company but a company that manufactures laptop batteries instead. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the article to allow AGK time to continue what he was doing, I think this will probably not survive AFD but if he was working with it I respect his work. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler

Hiya, just curious, do you feel that your concerns have been adequately addressed at the Pauline Fowler FA nom? Or do you feel that there are still outstanding issues? Would you be willing to post a "Support" at the nom? I'm concerned that things seem to have kind of stalled there, and I'm trying to figure out what I can do, in order to get things moving. Thanks, --Elonka 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked the lead a bit, since I agree it was odd that one sentence was in present and the rest in past. Most of the article is in past tense now, though there are a few places where present tense is more appropriate, such as in the image captions. Please let me know if you see anything else that looks odd? --Elonka 12:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, when you get a chance could you check over the changes that have been made to the lead of Pauline and give your opinion on the talk page please? We would appreciate your input :) Gungadin♦ 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we finally got the tense issues ironed out (see Talk:Pauline Fowler#Tense). Please take another look, and let us know if you think it meets FA standards now? :) --Elonka 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Geog list

I've replied to your latest post at FLC with a couple queries. I look forward to your replies there. User:The Transhumanist --15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. I'll be along when I can. --Dweller 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ian Chappell

Hey. I have nominated this article for FAC, it would be great if you could have a look & mebbe comment. I appreciated your work on Kippax, which is now GA. I will dust that one off and go again in the new year. Cheers Phanto282 08:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't go to PR cos I didn't get much of a response at PR to the Bradman article. Any-ways, I like to duke it out in the mighty public forum that is FAC...lol. Thx

Phanto282 08:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheerleader

Check out Talk:Courtney Simpson. Looks like I made a convincing argument! Oh, and by the way, I did some back breaking work on Iwan's table of scoring last night. Any ideas where we can get his seasonal performances for pre-95/96 seasons? The Rambling Man 08:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Rothmans may have it. I don't know if his autobiography was more than just a one-season diary, I guess it may still have an appendix or whatever. Dunno. Otherwise you could drop Clio a line I guess? The Rambling Man 11:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Morris FAC

Hi there Dweller. I'm Hoping to regain some momentum on the Invincibles FT. Please have a look. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ping.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for thread of the week

[2]

Funny and original but very informative. Really made me laugh. (Sorry, not good with links.) -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 23:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[3]

My bad. Here's a better link. Hope it works. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 18:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

Just thought I'd let you know I am taking a break and don't know when/if I shall be back. Thanks for all your help and support in the past, and you have my best wishes for the future. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Everton F.C. managers

YO dude. Spare a minute for a peer review? Just knocked this old thing up in my spare time and was hoping to take it to WP:FLC. You ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Boo. Don't give up. Come on, let's taskforce. What should we do... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, think I've addressed them. Did you get a mail I sent you on Monday? Nothing important, just to see if you were ok. Sorry to hear you're wikifatigued and too busy in reality... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't pick it up until tomorrow... by all means email me at home. Remove the dot before the @ and make it hotmail.com after the @ and you have me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've now moved this to FLC, fancy doing the honours? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What ho!

I appear to be back - thank you for your kind words and camellia sinensis-related good sense! DuncanHill (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRICAUSBIO

Hi there Dweller. Since we know have a lot of people writing about Australian cricket biography articles [I counted five people who have written FAs or GAs on Australian cricket in this year - a total of 5FAs and 9GAs], and since some people (like myself) tend to work offline or in sandboxes with a book for a few hours and then upload in a large chunk (so it seems), I have created this subnoticeboard type thing, so that people can write down what major expansions they are working on, so that there won't be instances of people spending 5-10 hours writing and collecting information which is then duplicated. It has happened before at WP:GAC that two people spent an hour or so reviewing an article and then had an edit conflict and posted two reviews on the same article among other things. Of course, this shows a good sign that the Australian cricket biography scene is doing well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Barnes sounds interesting but the books that detail his controversies are a bit more obscure than books detailing the actual cricket; the Barnes books are only in a no-borrowing library, which means I will have to do it on the run instead of doing it at home. I will be getting a copy of "Captain Australia" in the next few days so that should get me a few. Also I had a few long articles I had to get to GA, eg Bill Lawry and Bob Simpson (cricketer), Taylor, Border etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems as though there are a lot of people on Barnese atm so I might not be needed. I just upgraded Bill Brown (cricketer) today and Toshack the day before.. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the whole Wikiworld will know what a Mankad is soon - T:DYKT ... and advertising for our project will be on the talk page.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that one. On the other hand, the slight delay allowed me to nominate the picture as well. I forgot about nominating one. That should attract more customers. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Brown will be on the front page with mug in the next 2-10 hours roughly. Good advertising. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnes

I dunno. Is it taken in England or Australia? I'm guessing England from the spectator's clothing, and if so, no, we can't use it unfortunately. If it was taken in Australia in 1948 its OK. —Moondyne 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a terrific photo of him being carried off at Old Trafford in 1948 by 4 English policemen after he was hit in the ribs fielding at silly mid-on. Licensing for that would be unsuitable also, sadly. Grrrr! —Moondyne 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And another of him handing the dog to the umpire. Anyway, the graph is fixed to completed careers only. —Moondyne 14:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring

I've replied on that page.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And again!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dweller, I see your restrictions on Porcupine editing talkpages. I would have no objection to my talkpage being added to the "allowed" list. I'm not one to wield the blockstick at the first hint of incivility, BTW. If you say "no", fair enough - you're the boss. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed this, with updates further up the page. Any thoughts? Tonywalton  | Talk 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW:- I think I may be getting close to the 20 vandalism notices!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have missed this because you've had more comments below. Sorry! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnes

Yeah, I thought that as I was watching it progress today. Moondyne's images and words are going to make a world of difference I would think. Good luck with your latest prickly protege by the way...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Noticed the work on the Barnes article, very interesting topic. I have a section on his life between 1949-1955 that will fit in nicely & explain the famous libel case, the 12th man incident and why his career ended; just checking that it's kosher to add it. I want to make a couple of points about the lead. (1) His nickname was definitely not "Suicide Sid"; this seems to be a bit of artistic licence on the part of the ADB writer, who was looking for a bit of alliteration perhaps? He was usually known as Bagga or Siddy. (2) Although most refs indicate he committed suicide (and the evidence points that way), the coroner did return an open verdict. Again, the ADB uses the strange phrase "poisoned himself", when I think "overdose" is a better phrase. During his later years, he apparently suffered badly from depression (I think he had electro-convulsive therapy, not sure) and the main treatment for this in the 70s was barbituates, which were found in his system.

My take on Barnes is that he was ahead of his times in agitating for better pay. Had he played with the Chappells, Lillee, Marsh et al, he would be recognised as a character and his voice heard more sympathetically. I think the way he went out of cricket and his later battle with depression may have alienated him from former cricket friends, which has affected how he is perceived and written about.

Phanto282 (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm - "Bexfield"?

Wrong user there, I think. I've nothing to do with a Bexfield article! My ping was regarding my question a couple of sections above under the Porcupine Mentoring bit. (By the way, is it just me or did the whole of Wikipedia get locked up a couple of minutes ago?) Tonywalton  | Talk 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)