User talk:Nrcprm2026/Archive1

Cost of extreme weather events extrapolation

Discussion

I have removed the figure you recently added to Global warming for reasons explained here. Dragons flight 20:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree that graph would be best with confidence intervals. James S. 19:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(At this point, a very lengthy discussion took place on several article's talk pages, and below, and on some of these images talk pages.)

See: Talk:Global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph

Revision

the best fit to the annual data fails to match the preliminary 2005 estimate

the previous parabolic fit in the log domain based on decadal averages predicts the preliminary 2005 data prescisely; predicting a much steeper increase

The second revision of the decadal data added confidence intervals, had an additional degree of freedom, about the same very large R² as the initial graph, and used the nonnegative log domain only. It predicted a very much steeper increase.

After trying to get the first one up, nobody can accuse me of being alarmist after I followed their revision suggestions exactly and got a much more alarming graph. James S. 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you asked, on my user discussion page, "I see you have removed the graph I am working on from several pages because you say it is "unreliable" -- how can an extrapolation with the prediction confidence interval displayed not be "reliable?" ". easy. compare to the first two revisions of the same graph. in fact, why not create a graph showing the confidence interval of these three models against each other. then tell me your graph is reliable. i am in the process of posting a 'critique' of these graphs on my user page.Anastrophe 20:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I remind you that both graphs fall well within each other's 95% prediction confidence interval bands. I look forward to your critique. I suggest that if you think you can do better, that you make your own graph, so that objective third parties can compare the two and decide which has more merit. James S. 20:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a graph by me adds nothing. your own three graphs show very well that there is no reliability to your modeling. Anastrophe 20:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have shown at Talk:Global_warming#Inflation_adjustment that you lack a basic understanding of real versus actual cost to adjust for inflation, I am not suprised that you are unwilling to propose an alternative graph. But don't you think it would only be fair for me to critique your attempt? Goose, gander. James S. 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome to do whatever you want on your own user page. knock yourself out. i acknowledged my error. thus far, you have refused to explain why a discrepancy of more than 3 trillion dollars does NOT suggest you are doing something wrong. i look forward to revision four of your graph, showing that costs will be 580 billion in 2025. then revision five, showing 460 billion in 2025. then how about revision six, showing 2 trillion in 2025. this is an encyclopedia, not a place to engage your phantasies.Anastrophe 20:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly explained that the difference between the second and third revisions fall well within each other's 95% prediction confidence intervals. Do you know what a 95% prediction confidence interval is? Your sarcasm is impolite and uncalled-for, and nominally against the rules here. I believe the only way for us to resolve this issue is for you to create your own alternative graph. Why don't you download the free, 30-day evaluation of [TableCurve http://www.systat.com/products/TableCurve2D/] which I used, and give it a try with the data set on my userpage? James S. 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the "data set" on your page is a fundamental part of the problem. it is NOT a dataset. it is an estimation by examination of the values on an extant graph, and does not reference the *actual source data* used to generate that graph. furthermore, the dataset ends in 1998 - it is nearly eight years out of date, and incomplete. you are "predicting" values for which data already exists - it would be interesting to see how that eight year interval compares with your 'predictions' of already past history. but clearly, you are hell-bent to have this graph on wikipedia - what your motivation is i can only guess, but i would surmise you're a global warming hysteric, since you had no problem embracing 4 trillion as the cost in a previous graph. i could be wrong; it's just my opnion. wikipedia, however, suffers further as a reference source with the inclusion of this meaningless graph. i'm done. have fun. Anastrophe 20:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back when I took statistics, there was nothing wrong with digitizing data from a graph. I agree that it would be great to have the 1999-2005 data, and I want to encourage you to try to find it. I do believe that wind power is a very important but neglected alternative to fossil fuels. I believe that makes me a realist, not a "hysteric." In any case, thank you for the helpful comments early on. James S. 21:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i have not made, nor do i make, any claims of being a statistician, (or economist for that matter!). the onus is upon you to find the raw source data; you are the person who is making these extrapolations from an incomplete dataset. i believe also that wind energy is neglected, but i don't think it's as important as advances in solar power, which will eventually prove to be the only (and best, by far) alternative to fossil fuels, in my opinion. though it may seem like it, i have no personal ill-will towards you - i don't know you from Adam - but i do think that these speculations about future costs - which have vacillated wildly - are not helpful. stick to graphing the already-incurred costs. that should be more than cautionary enough. it is troubling to me that the IPCC's raw data is so difficult to find. Anastrophe 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future extrapolations you're doing are always subject to interpretation, that's all we can do since nobody can predict the future with absolute certainty. In particular I'd like to see you apply a linear fit, if anything, I feel it's a better fit. Also, by simply choosing the starting point of your data fitting you're presenting a POV, imagine choosing the 1980 to 1990 period only and stopping there, say that's all the data available to you, and then, you'd have a graph that shoots very far up. Or instead of 1950, starting at 1990, and plotting only the last few years, that might even extrapolate to a decline. Also, you're missing historical data up to and including 2005. What happened in 2001 for instance? Extrapolations are always dangerous, I'd rather see this graph showing only the historical data, and that's it, and let everyone mentally predict the future, with their eyesight. This whole thing you're doing feels like intentional false science to me. Blindly going with R-square numbers without additional added judgement is an easy trap to fall into. As they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Well, the data hasn't grown linearly; I think the linear fit's R² was 0.38. Why would linear be a better fit? I'm well aware that I'm missing recent data, and if you know where it is, please tell me. —James S. 06:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should not double edit a page, don't engage in "it is not right, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is too" type of kindergarten fights. Once someone disagrees, and you make a change, you should wait for yet another person to come by and undo the undos, or at least convince some people. Everyone should have a vote, and make it a democratic process, and when 3 people disagree with you, and you fail to convince at least 3 other people to agree with you, you should stop reverting the edits. Of course you can always sign up for more usernames, and be a sockpuppet like that, but then at least it's obvious you're lying to yourself or acting with deliberate bad faith, and it's only funny for so long, the joke gets old, so I don't recommend that avenue of getting your way, but instead try to wait for others to come and agree with you, or actively try to convince some people on user and talk pages. In the meantime, at least while the controversy settles, you should keep the graphs on the talk pages.

Sillybilly 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think truth should be decided by majority vote. —James S. 06:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

then you probably shouldn't be on wikipedia, because that's how wikipedia works (which is not an endorsement). Anastrophe 06:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the current dispute resolution procedures are democratic, and some of them are less so, and designed to protect unpopular facts. —James S. 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry, i don't understand. which are you suggesting is not majority vote? democracy is rule by majority.Anastrophe 07:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and which "truth" are you talking about? your graph? or something else?Anastrophe 07:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At one end are the surveys, third-opinion, and RfC, which are democratic, but once you get up to mediations and adjudications, the decision authority is vested in an appointed few. I find it interesting to look at the adjudications appealed from RfCs. There are plenty of examples of unpopular contributions treated unfairly until they got to a formal non-democratic process. —James S. 07:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and see-also

Hello, welcome to wikipedia.

A note about the see-also's and ext links: these have a tendency to grow as people just add "just one more link" there. They need trimming back. Things already linked in the article shouldn't be in the see-also lists: which is why I took out global warming from climate change. "Hey I wanted to read those" isn't an answer: they aren't there for your personal benefit.

William M. Connolley 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Replied on Talk:Climate change. James S. 23:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Crimbo!

Have a Proper and Merry Crimbo. File:Pressie.gif, in fact here is a pressie from the Doctor to you. Ho. Ho. Ho! File:Unclecrimbo.gif Dr. McCrimbo 22:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Template:Attack on population center

Hi! I hope I'm not terribly bothering you, but, as I've responded here, the replacement Template:Infobox Military Conflict can handle civilian casualties perfectly well. Was this the only concern you had with deleting the old version, or are there other reasons why you feel it should be kept? —Kirill Lokshin 21:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the RfD. —James S. 01:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs page

Hi-

I see you've re-organised Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. I don't think I'm entirely happy with the re-organisation - the page seems to flow much better in its previous format. While some of your new sub-sections such as USA are needed, I don't think alphabetical listing is the way to go... to that extent I would be liable to revert the page back to its previous format and factor in the non-structural amendments you made... and perhaps reach an alternative compromise after that. Potential? File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 22:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Beliefs#re-organisation —James S. 01:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

response to depleted uranium inquiry

james,

thanks for responding. i looked over my post and my initial response is that while its terse and emotional, i'm comfortable with the factual content. perhaps you could be more specific. i certainly dont want to proliferate bad science.

i filmed leuren moret yesterday for 3 hours in berkeley concerning depleted uranium and exotic space weapons for my news program. she's one of the foremost authorities on its use and radioactive biological contamination. she recently did a report for the UN on it. she formally worked for the US government in a nuclear facility. her phd is in atmospheric dust. i will probably expand that sight with information derived from her research.

if its inaccurate, i and i'm sure she would like to know. seriously. its too important a subject to trivalize with inaccuracies.

thanks for broaching the subject.

peace

zen destiny

(surrealization to zen destiny)

please refer all traffic from surrealization to zen destiny, my more appropriate moniker. this is in reference to the depleted uranium strain.

oh, and i'm formulating a position response to your ascertains. i know for sure that there are no sub micron filters. i actually referred your comments to leuren. so i'll just post her responses to you since she is more knowledgeable on the subject.

Replied on Talk:Depleted_uranium and Zen's talk page. —James S. 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is a new experience for me.

i'm following the thread and much of it is new material for me. good stuff. i'll will let it run its course before i examine the total du page construct and then determine if i want to make a contribution. ideally, i'd like to see leuren do that. i had interviewed her the day before for my program and wanted to jump in.

i'll gradually adapt to the collective agreements and processes here.

Zen Destiny 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox: Interests Sorting

Hello:

I see that you've merged the "Political, social, ethical stances etc." section on Userboxes has been merged into the "Interests" sections. I fail to see why. Since when is your religion, sexual orientation, gender, status, your mental health, etc. an interest? The page doesn't flow well anymore, and the interests section seems too crowded. Morgan695 00:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we keep it the way that we originally had it. Like I said, the Interests section is now fairly crowded and hard to navigate. I'm not saying that religious people don't consider their religion to be an interest, but like I said, the interests section seems too crowded now. Morgan695 01:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that it your comment on the Wikipedia:Userboxes history page was extremely inappropriate. Have you ever heard the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? It's your own fault that you poorly organized the categories and someone objected to it. Morgan695 04:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(All replied on Morgan's talk page) --James S. 00:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What an interesting exchange at Depleted uranium. It is good to have people who have great expertise in this issue contributing, and discussing here. I have a question that I am hoping you could answer. I have heard talk that some of the "bunker buster" bombs that utilize depleted uranium (which have been used in Iraq) may also have thrown in "for good measure" other radioactive metals such as neptunium and americium, whatever waste products are lying around that need to be gotten rid of. If it's true, the producers may not feel any guilt about this, as the bombs would be used against "bad people," of course. I guess there really isn't any way to know, as a FOIA or other request might not get this information, as the bombs are produced by private companies. The use of such more radioactive materials might better meet your criteria of "nuclear." Badagnani 10:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

replied on Badagnani's talk page --James S. 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal vs Inhuman

Hi, I noticed you changed the heading 'animal welfare' to 'inhuman welfare' (Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs). Would you care to explain why you did that? Thanks! Larix 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user just has a wicked sense of humor, that's all. Snicker, snicker, giggle, giggle at it, then go revert his edits. Sillybilly 22:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the user does not know how to behave properly, and is confused between harmful pranks and vandalism.

MSTCrow 07:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I changed it, I changed it to "Inhuman rights" because I couldn't think of a better name. If that offended, please let me know how. Humans are animals, so "animal rights" is too broad. —James S. 10:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I asked because I wasn't sure wether you meant it as a joke or more seriously. But you seem to have done it in good faith. I'm sorry if the comments made following my question have offended you, since that was absolutely not what I intended to happen. Larix 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

Please DO NOT change the content of other user's User pages. If you feel something is incorrect, ASK that it be corrected, on the discussion page. Changing my user page without asking constitutes vandalism. Anastrophe 07:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a one word correction, s/years/decades/, I believe. He was also upset when I updated a graphic I was working on after he had included it on his user page. I don't think either actions were wrong. --James S. 01:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the graph?

Why do you persist in inserting your projection into multiple articles when no one else seems to support its existence, and many people seem intent on removing it? Dragons flight 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I believe it conveys valuable information about recent trends from a NPOV. I note that the version produced with feedback from wikipedians, not my original or subsequent graph, most closly predicts the preliminary observed 2005 data. I will continue to add it unless the extrapolation is shown to be flawed. —James S. 22:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The graph is original research (i.e. you came to your own conclusions and decided to extrapolate into the future based on a very limited data set) and I will remove it every time I see it, consistent with the wikipedia policy No original research. I don't actually care how much revision you do to it now (not that there's much you could do to save your ridiculous graph) Mostlyharmless 01:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The graph is not original, it is the product of others' suggestions on Wikipedia. An independent third party has confirmed that it does not qualify as research, either. An extrapolation is merely a way to present existing data, which in this case were from a peer-reviewed source. --James S. 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that you appear to want to make is that global warming is leading to more severe storms and that this is reflected in increased economic costs from storm damage. So, let me ask you a question, of the ~9 fold increase in extreme weather economic costs, how much would have occured if there was no global warming? Do other factors account for 5% of that change, 50%, 99%? There are reasons to believe that extreme weather events will become more severe and more common, but obviously temperatures, wind speeds, percipitation, etc. have not changed by nearly 9-fold. So why should anyone believe that the relatively small changes in environmental conditions will lead to such dramatic changes in economic cost? Maybe, just maybe, most of the observed change related to population growth and coastal development? For example, in inflation adjusted terms, the US GDP has increased ~3.6 fold from 1960-1998, and it wouldn't be hard to imagine that investments could have been disproportionally concentrated in vulnerable coastal areas. You are trying to draw conclusions about what will happen in the future, but without any serious discussion of the factors that have caused the changes in the past and those that will change in the future, it is impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effects of global warming or anything else. In essence, this is why Wikipedia insists on no original research, because the serious research questions need to be addressed and considered by experts in an appropriate venue for such research. Dragons flight 07:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These questions have been answered by the Association of British Insurers. Please see at Effects of global warming and elsewhere on the wiki and web. --James S. 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on the graph in reply to my userpage discussion

both exactly the same? you're kidding, right?

first graph, vertical axis, billions 2001 US dollars, 0, 200, 400, 600, 800
second graph, vertical axis,billions 2001 US dollars, 0, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000
third graph, vertical axis, billions 2001 US dollars, 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300

that's the most peculiar definition of 'exactly the same' i've run across. Anastrophe 05:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the units, not their values. —James S. 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing user boxes

if you are going to remove userboxes from a page - could you please make a note of it in the deletion log. This action orphans the boxes and is almost the same as deleting them because they become impossible to find. If your are going to delete boxes from one section make sure you add those same boxes to a different section. Thankyou--God of War 18:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete any, as far as I know. I moved many to where they had more appropriate categories. I wonder what I may have missed, and offer to put it back. —James S. 19:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is refering to this edit: [1] I have fixed it now.--God of War 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reversal of Terry Oldberg's edits to Nuclear power

Thanks for the message. I'd planned on waiting a couple of days for a response to my posting in the talk section of the article before reversing the reversal. Does that sound like a good plan?

I see that we're neighbors, as I live in Los Altos Hills and you in Menlo Park. Perhaps we could have lunch some day.

Terry Oldberg 20:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian gulf syndrome

Just so you know, from now on you don't have to make articles which say "see whatever", you can just make a redirect. -- Bachrach44 03:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to edit that page into a redirect, but you got their first. You're too quick; I had never done a redirect and wanted to kind of try it out. But don't worry; I was still able to add Template:R_from_alternate_name. Thanks! —James S. 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize for jumping the gun (and accidentally deleting the template the first time). If you'd like you can make a redirect from Persian Gulf syndrome (note the capitalization), and this time I promise to be less impulsive :-). -- Bachrach44 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transplutonic relationships

hey james. thanks for the tip. hope you're doing ok and had a relaxing break. peace. Zen Destiny 03:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf War Syndrome - Birth defects, gonocytes and testes

You are reverting edits without using the article's discussion page. Please take a look at Talk:Gulf War syndrome AvB ÷ talk 11:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. —James S. 11:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on MFD page

Lol..... Are you trying to poke fun at my lame page? --Terence Ong ^Talk 12:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I was, with a harmless joke in a speedy vote for deletion, nowhere near article space, where I believe I've been completely serious. --James S. 01:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awnsers to "Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion"

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

Yes the Code of Conduct is full of common sence, and the part about "Recusal" makes sence to me I would Recusal myself from any Arbitration that fell under thoses rules, funny side story a friend of mine from High School called me when her mom saw that I was running for Arbitration Committee small world isnt it?

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

As stated in your first question all of the rules are pure simple common sence.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

I stated in the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules that I think we should add up to 48 new people to the arbitrtion committee to help speed up arbitration, I also think we should have a circuit system.

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Here are my votes in the the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules

Proposal 1: Must be an admin to run for ArbCom : Very Stron Oppose Adminship and Arbitration are differnt and should stay so ones abilty to resolve conflict should not be based on edits. --Kylehamilton 00:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Proposal 2: Block voting : Nutral
Proposal 3: Midyear elections : Support haveing a large grouping of people for article arbitration is helpful --Kylehamilton 00:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Proposal 4: Expansion to 24 seats : Strong Support We should look into adding ever more seats, the most commen complaints im hearing about Arbitration is that it takes months to have your case heard we should look into adding a addisional 20 people on top of the proposed 24
Proposal 5: Run-off election : Nutral
Proposal 6: Alternates to fill vacanciesThis one kind of depends on what happens with Proposal 4. If we have a pool of 24 arbiters (as suggested in P4) then having the committee reduced by three or four (or even six or seven) over the course of the year isn't going to be a disaster. This is an excellent idea if the committee isn't enlarged. SIDENOTE: Pureblade and I agreed with TenOfAllTrades he wrote this not myself I just agreed to it
Proposal 7: Expansion to 30 seats Weak Support This is a simple concept that would only help speed up the Arbitration process, I like the idea of letting memebers of the arbitration committee sit on more then one case we should also look to adding up to 48 new members to the committee--Kylehamilton 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Proposal 8: Condorcet voting Nutral
Proposal 9: Three year terms for all Nutral
Proposal 10: Nulify all sockpuppet and puppetmaster votes Support this is simpley common sense, good luck trying to enforce this.--Kylehamilton 00:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Proposal 11: Two year terms for all Nutral
Proposal 12: Stay with 12 seats, with optional panels of 3 Strong Oppose there should be around 48 members of the committee and only 3/5/7/9 should view cases, if it has to go to the full committee for some reson it better be good --Kylehamilton 01:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Proposal 13: Votes to accept include panel size 5/7/9 # Support I would like to see it as a 3/5/7/9 but this works --Kylehamilton 00:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank You and more Awnsers

I just wanted to say thanks for bring up a list of good question as a follow up to your other questions here it goes:-)

Im visting my family out of town and I only have my mac laptop when I edit at my house I do so on my PC that has Microsoft word.

What I think the 4th non latin section your talking about says that if a the Committee wants to prevent a user from writeing on certin subjects then the committee can ban them and what have you, for example there was a case I read about a guy that kept putting his on view of the Isreal/Palistin conflict in the artical so the ArbCom banned him from writeing on that subject. Thats what I think it means if im wrong then if someone could correct me that would be great.

--Kylehamilton 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme weather graph (again)

I have archived the discussion about this at Talk:global warming as it ended about a week ago. Please accept the conclusion of that debate, and do not try to add the graph again with extrapolated data. We've discussed the issue enough, and there's much else that we could be doing on the topic of climate change. (For instance, business action on climate change and politics of global warming have the potential to be really useful articles.) Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 14:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, he continues to post and repost his graphs to Action on Climate Change and Extreme weather, generating even further rehashing of these same problems. Anastrophe 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the pages in question. —James S. 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Group numbers

Re:uranium >> "f-block (lanthanides and actinides) don't have groups"

Can you provide a cite for that? Not because I don't believe it, but because the matter has seen a little discussion buried in the archives of Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Elements, however with no results. The question-mark number links are only a (semi-permanent..) temporary solution. If there was an authoritative reference on what exactly the IUPAC group numbers mean and what they don't mean, an infobox entry row template could be created without the group parameter specifically for those series. Femto 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Ungrouped elements. —James S. 20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No good I'm afraid. That article itself is also in need of a reference, it can't circularly define its own content. I was hoping here that some chemistry maven would be able to pull out their IUPAC Red Book and cite away. Never mind then. Femto 21:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that IUPAC only has 18 groups. Googling suggests that James, M.H. (1985) "Chemical Elements" New Scientist 105: 49 is an appropriate reference. —James S. 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is the definitive reference:

International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry: Commission on the Nomeclature of Inorganic Chemistry, Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry Recommendations 1990, ed. G.J. Leigh, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1990.

—James S. 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about the book but I don't have access to it. The question remains, what does it say? The data that we use from WebElements.com does not list group numbers for the f-block, but some people (just as reasonably, from the electron configurations) apparently assume it to be an inset of group 3. The articles become inconsistent and keep changing back and forth, and I hoped you were citing from memory from an authoritative reference and could have easily settled it once and for all. Femto 12:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said never mind, but the more I think about this, the more I think the entire f-block should be in Group 3. I haven't been able to look it up for certain, but I will soon, I promise. --James S. 12:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See? Alarming how easy it is to get yourself stuck in this dilemma, isn't it? WebElements.com is reputable enough and implies it one way, supported by ungrouped elements. On the other hand, that article gives no reference and might be a self-running soap bubble based on circular reasoning. It seems just as plausible to put it all in group 3, but there is no definite reference for that either. It could even well be that this is a matter of convention without clear definition, and one might find references either way if one digs deep enough. I know that IUPAC is deliberately vague on some topics. What really bugs me is, trifle that it is, this definition affects the consistency of quite a number of articles. I'd be delighted over any contribution that goes beyond speculation. Femto 14:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what you find, because I have an unsolved discussion with another Norwegian user regarding the group numbers of lanthanides and actinides. We couldn't find any definitive sources and gave up quarrelling. Later we started a project on chemical elements together. :) --Eddi (Talk) 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Femto 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user allboxes

I noticed that you have removed the tfd notice from the template. I can not find the page where it says the debate is closed, however. Can you show me a link so I can update the alerts page?--God of War 18:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on sender's talk page. James S. 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering and Operations in the Bell System

Oh my goodness, I take a look at who is supporting me on No Gun Ri massacre and who is it but KM himself. I haven't had an elite encounter like this since I ran into Tuc at Telehouse in 2003.

Have you ever seen the movie Control Room? Most of the movie is filmed at CENTCOM HQ in the Persian Gulf. If you haven't seen the movie, CENTCOM is basically the spin doctors of the Pentagon. Back before this was moved off of the No Gun Ri page, there used to be a person who would try to downplay what happened at No Gun Ri. After one edit[2] I decided to do a dig or nslookup on their IP and, voila, the guy is working for CENTCOM in Iraq. So I am editing pages here documenting what the US military did in Korea decades ago, as part of the overall campaign to reign in this beast rampaging about the world, and my efforts are being thwarted by some commissar who is working off of my tax dollars.

Anyhow, one of my subpages off my user page proffers the position that Wikipedia is sort of a lost cause, and more efforts should be made in building Demopedia, dKosopedia, Sourcewatch, Anarchopedia, Red Wiki and the like. I go over this on my user page - I think Wikipedia is fine for pages like quantum mechanics and horrible for pages like No Gun Ri incident. So I do most of my work on historical and political pages on the other wiki encyclopedias. It might make tactical sense to "hold the fort" here a little bit, but if you are going to spend a month writing an article that you don't want some bozo to wreck on the first day, check out my user page sub-page statement on this, almost two years of being here has shown me that Wikipedia is unfixable, and will probably eventually splinter, at least with the historical/political stuff. In fact, it already has. Ruy Lopez 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Replied on Ruy's talk page. --James S. 20:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on depleted uranium

Hi James.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed requesting reconsideration because all reverts on Depleted uranium were removing multi-paragraph, dozen-peer-reviewed-source vandalism. --James S. 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your email. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was blocked for two or three hours. To mediation! --James S. 01:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted uranium mediation

I took a look. I get the impression that this is an issue where the U.S. government and a significant number of scientists are on opposite sides, which by definition makes it contentious. Is there anything in particular you want me to do? I'm not actively involved with that article (though I have edited it). Also I don't have enough knowledge of medicine, and particularly radiation poisoning/oncology, to have an opinion. -- Pak aran 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're looking for an advocate. I'm not really active in the AMA, so I'm not sure my skills are up to par, but I'll keep an eye out informally on your behalf if you like. -- Pak aran 01:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know how busy I will be with school. I can certainly ensure you get a fair chance to reply; if you wanted to take another advocate who might have time to do more I'd understand. I don't know offhand of any who are actively involved in the scientific issues. For that matter, I'm a computer scientist with 3 undergrad courses in physics, and 1 in chemistry (which I brought in from AP credit) so I don't know all that much in a formal sense about these particular issues. Again, I'll certainly do my best to make sure you get a chance to reply during the moderation, and I'll work on helping you negotiate an NPOV for the article that fairly presents the anti-DU arguments. -- Pak aran 02:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'll make an effort to check every 18-24 hours. I'm going to be really busy until tomorrow (monday) night because I have a large report due at midnight. Starting tuesday morning, I should have less to do. -- Pak aran 02:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm keeping an eye on the mediation page. If you need me to help with anything in an urgent manner, my AIM name is pakaran2, my MSN name (which I never check for email) is pakaran42@hotmail.com and my Yahoo ID is pakaran42 (I also never check that for email). -- Pak aran 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, yeah, I've watched that page and will keep an eye on it as well. -- Pak aran 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reaching the point where I will again be very busy with homework. If you want to seek another Advocate, I would understand. -- Pak aran 01:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarz

Yes, I followed WP:NLT and long-standing precedent. As you'll have seen from reading Talk:Stephen Schwartz (journalist)#Legal threats I did give warning very publicly. -Splash^talk 01:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted uranium

James, It's becoming apparent from reading your responses to Lcoloson that you were not responsible for many of the more glaring errors in the section under question. Also I believe that you are motivated by a desire to find the truth, rather than just using this issue to lash out in hatred. I too have been involved in the DU issue for a long time, and I can tell you that finding folks that want to approach this problem with an open mind (even if they have biases) is rare.

Please work with us. We are willing to work with you, and we have the background to help polish this section to the point where the statements of risk would be unassailable from a scientific POV. And while I have no idea what other reasons you have for pursuing this matter outside of Wikipedia, you have the opportunity to draw on free expertise whose input can only help strengthen the technical side of your project and help you avoid embarrassing errors that might undermine your case.

I admit that I have been teasing you a bit in talk, but the fact is you don't really have the knowledge to mount an effective argument without some help, and you will run into critics a lot harder than us. A scientific argument is not like a legal argument: you can't hold a position and simply gather evidence to support your stand hoping to be able to present more of it in your favor than your opponent can in theirs. Science mostly involves stating a hypothesis and showing that you can test it by observations designed to falsify the statment made and failing. I'm afraid that the arguments in the section are presented more like the former than the latter.

We have an opportunity here for the first time in this article's stormy history to have a group of people from both sides of the fence willing to give a little to make this section into something that could possibly be the one major unbiased treatment of this issue on the web.--DV8 2XL 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:DV8 2XL. --James S. 01:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we will have to do this the hard way. Too bad. --DV8 2XL 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming Link

In response to your message: I thought the link in question would provide some diversity of opinion to the article. As always, readers are free to draw their own conclusions. Perhaps the link would be more appropriately categorized under the "other" link and not the "science" link. Thank you for your feedback.

Lou Landers 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tadpole

Reading your comment on the improvement drive for Frog, perhaps you would like to mark tadpole as a stub? I'm not sure how much more could be usefully said about it, but if you have ideas, maybe you can put a "todo" list on the talk page, or even help out yourself? - Samsara 18:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub done. --171.64.133.77 20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on No_Gun_Ri

You have pretty clearly broken WP:3RR on No_Gun_Ri. Please stop or you'll be blocked (though not by me). In fact I strongly advise you to self-revert ASAP to show good faith. William M. Connolley 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! I thought I was at two. Replied on WmC's talk. --James S. 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonick

Don't worry. Lemonick is a reporter at Time magazine. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm

I do not frequent sci.physics.fusion anymore. Too busy at LENR-CANR!

- Jed

DU TWO

Would you agree to split this topic into a Depleted uranium page dealing only with the material and its applications, with a one paragraph section on heath issues neutrally stating that there is a running debate between those that believe the hazard is high and those who believe it to be minimal? Heading that section would be a main article link to Depleted uranium (health and environmental issues) that would deal in depth with this aspect of the topic in a complete, meaning; the history; the debate; the evidence from both sides; the politics; perhaps even major players (although as I said I don’t see this as a positive) aside from the material itself. It will draw away much of the fire that the current article has drawn, and would allow a much more detailed treatment of your issues under a heading where science and reportage will not be in so much tension. --DV8 2XL 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As agreed, I had the DU article unlocked and replaced it with the /basic verson with links to the Health effects and Gulf War syndrome pages, bringing this round to an end. I think the fact that we managed to hammer this out by ourselves is a feather in our caps and an example to all who are in conflicts on the 'pedia. I thank you all. --DV8 2XL 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menlo Park

Easier to do this via talk pages. I'm mostly concerned with the reference to a specific store (two, actually) in the Menlo Center, and the correponding link. Although the cafe may be a popular lunch spot, the reference (perhaps unintentionally) looks like an advertisement to me — which is why I revised it. Since you're a resident and capable editor, I'll defer to your judgment, if you feel that mentioning the specific names of these two businesses is of sufficient notability for an encyclopedic entry... but in any case, the link should be removed [3].

On a related note, your revision to the parking paragraph removed the POV content, but I'd also consider removing the entire thing, as it's not of sufficient importance to include in an encyclopedia. Again, I'll defer to your judgment, but local parking codes aren't particularly noteworthy (my last neighborhood had the same regulation, as a matter of fact). Deadsalmon 09:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It's been a while since I've been able to be in Menlo Park, and my knowledge of the area is somewhat limited, so it's good to have a local Wikipedian take care of the article properly. Appreciate the patience and good faith assumption. Deadsalmon 09:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydropower in Europe

Hi James,

Re the comment about European demand being met by hydropower.... the short answer is I don't know! I suspect it's a little exaggerated! Most (effectively all) hydro is in the nordic countries principally Norway. Norway could probably be, or is, self sufficient in hydro however its population is only 4.5 million compared with western Europe's 300 million. I suspect all Norway's hydro would be equivalent to a few days of European demand.

Of course that is NOT to say it could power Europe at all. Installed Norwegian hydro generation is I guess a few tens of GW - total European peak demand is probably around 300 to 400 GW (without looking the figures up). Additionally the transmission links out of Norway will have a limited capacity.

Andy

Re: 100 "top" stars?

These are the top 100 stars that TPF is expected to find terrestrial planets around. I got it from this, I just used the more common name of the stars. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 01:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb

Just correcting a misconception. There is no evidence that OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb is a terrestrial planet. There is no evidence against this either, we simply don't know. All that was determined by the discovery team was the planets approximate mass and approximate separation from it's primary. This, coupled with the star's spectral type, and we can make speculations on the type of worlds that could fit it's profile. It's either a big terrestrial type, or a small ice/gas world like Neptune's kid brother. We don't know which, though. Both are mentioned in the article. - Beowulf314159 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidently, if you're looking for a good spell-checker for your browser, I would recommend SpellBound with Firefox 1.5 :) - Beowulf314159 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) I'm a terrible speller who likes to write for Wikipedia, so I need something like that ;) Glad it's working well for you :) - Beowulf314159 03:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI again

Starting Monday, I'll be a lot less busy. I'm sorry for not doing more to help, but again my technical knowledge is very poor (plus, as a grad student my workload is irregular, can be 20 hours one week and 70 the next...) but if there's anything I can do to help, just let me know. -- Pak aran 04:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just left him a message. -- Pak aran 05:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Justice

Hey, thanks for joined Community Justice. Can I interest you with a place on the council? Compu te r Jo e 09:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Compu te r Jo e[reply]

WP:AN

I wasn't sure what your goal was with this edit, so I've reverted it (it appears you had good intentions, but you may have accidentally removed a large amount of unrelated content). =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I was actually more concerned that you knew your comment had been removed in the process of reverting so you could go back and do whatever it was you intended to do originally. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Dead External Links

I asked the same question and got this answer :: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Weblinkchecker.py — Pattersonc(Talk) 12:34 PM, Tuesday; January 31 2006 (EST)

You need it run on anything, I have a bot thats just finishing up a few jobs right now and will be idle within a couple days. Tawker 09:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DU

How nice of you. However, I don't believe I have done anything wrong by restoring links and interwikis which were unjustifiably deleted from the article. Badagnani 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sheehan

yes. it may take a bit of work, but i'll make sure the important facts are up top. that's part of the problem; the chronology shouldn't be a substitute for the important events, but rather a more detailed exposition. hope i'm not treading on toes, and obviously feel free to ensure the major facts are early on. i think they belong in the first text section on her activism. not all the detail should be there however, because it will bury the main storyline. regards, Derex 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

screw it; it's impossible to get anything done when Badagnani reverts every two friggin seconds. somebody needs to give him a lesson in basic wikimanners. feel free for the moment to put it all back the way it was if you want; i'm fed up and going to bed. ridiculous. Derex 07:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dirty" DU

Hi James. About a week ago I added a line to the history section of Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium#History mentioning a U.N. report that suggested that some of the DU rounds had been manufactured with material from the reprocessing cycle. I have not been able to find this report anywhere, and I was wondering if you had run across it in your research. If this is true it is a finding with major consequences as uranium is one thing; minor actinides are another all together, as even in minute amounts these can be a very serious hazard. I have seen this finding mentioned several times, I would very much like to give it some weight with a reference. --DV8 2XL 12:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

--James S. 12:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any other reason remove the UO₃(g) sources in Uranium trioxide than that you thought that someone else would take them out later? (not paper) --James S. 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion controversy

I agree with you completely that this one shouldn't be split. Should we put Cold fusion controversy up for deletion? --DV8 2XL 13:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but lets give the author a few days to to it himself. I should have added a merge tag to that one, too. --James S. 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll keep an I on it, but frankly I don't see much worth salvaging there. --DV8 2XL 15:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it has any arguments against CF that are actually true, they could be merged in for NPOV. In particular, though, whether P&F followed proper scientific procedures isn't much of an argument (it would be like arguing today that Jupiter's moons didn't exist because Galileo might have been lying). -- Pak aran 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UO3 Gas

The chemical compounds topics are patrolled by a group of chemists who have probably a lower tolerance for this sort of thing than I do. I have run afoul with them for the temerity of starting an article named chromia and was raked over the coals for it. Your interpretation will not be accepted by them and they will act in force to protect the article what they will see as original research. --DV8 2XL 16:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't touch it James, but in all conscience I can't bring myself to defend it. Good luck. --DV8 2XL 16:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't change your new section title, but I will point out you are rasing a red flag with it. --DV8 2XL 16:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion, DU

I'm glad I was able to help, and sorry I couldn't do more (partially because I lacked the technical understanding). Even though my user page says I'm a skeptic about cold fusion, I now think it's something that should be looked at much more seriously (in particular, I worry that if the Japanese get patents, the US will go from being dependent on the mideast for oil to being dependent on Japan for cold fusion equipment, although that would be a significant improvement). Our article on the platinum group does not mention nickel, is it in error? In any case, titanium, for one, is a quarter of the way across the periodic table from the platinum group. -- Pak aran 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied

I just grabbed some of your box code on your userpage to improve mine. Thanks! Jimbo 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC neutrality

"____ insists on adding long section of _____. Other editors argue that it is, first, unencyclopædic, and secondly, completely unsourced"

That is nowhere near neutral. --James S. 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It says what one peson is doing and why others disagree. The only word that might be thought of as being less than neutral is "insists"; why not change it if you feel that strongly? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Talk page of the article for my view. Your reversion was, frankly, dishonest. In so far as I requested anything, it concerned one word; you changed the whole entry under the pretence that it was at my request. Your version is not only mostly irrelevant to the point at issue, but serves (I can only assume deliberately) to disguise the problem for which RfC is requested. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in discussing this issue with you, as you seem unable to see your own actions for what they are, nor to understand the problem. Howvere, if you revert the RfC page again you will have violated W:3RR, and will be liable for a 24-hour block. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Mel's talk page --James S. 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Former BSA.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Former BSA.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I've written my rationale for the deletion of this image at the template located at Template talk:User former BSA. Let me know if I've made a mistake or if you have any other considerations. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on template talk with motivation questions on user talk. --James S. 08:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue. I will say that I don't support the BSA's discrimination against gays. However, I'm a little insulted by the fact that you are possibly implying that the nomination was done in bad faith. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not strike other user's comments. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following you. You never strike other users' comments, save for the occasional removal of personal attacks. The closing admin's job is to sift through the comments; he or she will know if the tag had been removed. Your job is simply to present your argument. WP:OWN does not refer to your ability to deface my comments in a discussion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you shouldn't strike out my comments when the issue is unresolved. You are not here to make policy yourself; for now, you are here to participate in the discussion. Striking out my comments is a breach of civility and leads to the misrepresentation of the validity of my argument in an issue still open. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left another note at Template talk:User former BSA. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note at Template talk:User former BSA. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 10:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it was civil to question my motives and personal beliefs as the first move in my good faith image nomination? Do you think it was civil to remove all deletion tags and strike my arguments before I had a chance to respond? Do you think it was civil to add a word into a Wikipedia guideline and only label the change as a grammatical fix? You'll notice that though I had no obligation to assume good faith per your very first response, I continued to for hours. After several back-and-forth reversions on a number of pages, it was only natural for me to call in a third, neutral party to look at the issue with a level head. I didn't call for an RfC or an RfA; I just asked some experienced users to look at the issue.

I struck the second sample edit before you posted this on my talk page, as I agreed that it was an erroneous mistake. However, do you think that stating, "I am relieved to read that," to my response to your bad faith question that, "I don't support the BSA's discrimination against gays," led me to believe that you're completely neutral? Do you really think that I hadn't seen the long list of edits to the La Salle article?

I'm not saying that your IfD argument is wrong after your introduction of new evidence. I just wish that you'd assume good faith, though I continued to do so. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate these words, and can sympathize with what seems a natural response to deletion nominations. I've seen the debate about this userbox, and know that tensions run high on both sides. I think that this discussion, overall, has helped Wikipedia as a whole, as most people (myself included) weren't aware of the trademark clauses you mentioned you eventually presented. Regardless, I suppose my participation in deletion discussions is going to give me a heart attack before I reach 25! Hope to work with you in the future on better terms, as well. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'm glad you're enjoying the Signpost! It's sometimes hard to tell whether anyone is reading, I appreciate you taking the time to let us know you like it. Cheers! — Catherine\^talk 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well! I really appreciate it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]