User talk:Phoebe/Archive4

FAC

I noticed that you are a long time wikipedian. Just in case you have time and interest in the topic:

I would like to have your comments on my recent work for further improvement. Any suggestion will be very much appreciated. Thanks.Sangak 19:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SF Meetup

Thanks for the info. Are we planning this around a Jimbo drop in?

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Looking_for_source

Since you're part of Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service I was wondering if you could help me with the linked issue on the science reference desk. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name changes rock

And tigers are amazing. Next up: the flying wallaby. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sj (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

wikimania06

Hey! Long time no chat. :) I am sorry the Proceedings are in such an unfinished state; it's been something I've been meaning to get round to for the longest time but life has just been manic. Happily, I'm just about to start a month's vacation and I intend to use it to sort the Proceedings out properly. First step will be to tidy up what's on the wiki already: i.e. get the stuff we already have uploaded into a finalised state and iron out any inconsistencies (such as the way that BOFs are presented). Second step will be to get in touch with presenters whose material is still missing to encourage them to send in any material they have. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your new name

The Transhumanist 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mania6

Hi Phoebe,

After some search, I found this: <quote> Finally, 14:15h, I have my BoF-discussion about Localization on a globalizing project. The idea was to discuss the direction the Wiki-phenomenon would go. I gave two extreme alternatives: One big Wiki-Hive with all the content gathered together or on the other side a lot of fractioned wiki's with all specialized content. The discussion did not went as planned at all, we mostly discussed about languages, how the barriers between languages could be closed, how people from different projects, different languages could better cooperate. We came to one conclusion, that there should come a mother-wiki, connection all wiki's. That mother-wiki should link to all wiki's on a certain topic. For instance, when we talk about the topic of Amsterdam, it should link to the Wikitravel-article about Amsterdam, the Wikipedia-article (all language-editions) about Amsterdam, the quotations collection about Amsterdam in Wikiquote in all languages etc. Unfortunately we did not discuss who should set that up. </quote>

I wrote this ages ago, and this is the best I can get I think for LG1. Maybe I filled in one of your forms on the spot too, I recall there were forms, I don't whether I filled in one. Maybe I left some info there too. Note btw this quoted text comes from a text that is explicitly CC-BY-SA, and *not* GFDL. effeietsanders 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children's encyclopedia

Phoebe, I apologise for not getting back to you on the Children's encyclopedia notion. I've just been very busy lately and will continue to be so (I'm in Chicago at the moment), but I wanted you to know I certainly haven't forgotten your posting. I'll get back in touch when things quieten down a bit. Hope you're well, Walkerma 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection etc --BozMo talk 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar on DST page?

Your recent change to Daylight saving time left me puzzled. The original text "Having almost everyone agree about the layout of the day confers…" is proper grammar, just has "Having money makes me happy" is proper grammar. But I can't parse the revised text "Having almost everyone agrees that the layout of the day confers…". Perhaps the original text could stand improvement, but the revision seems to make things less grammatical. Eubulides 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the wording with "General agreement about the day's layout confers…"; hope that suffices. Eubulides 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, I botched it; but see rewriting suggestions on your talk page. cheers, -- phoebe/(talk) 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, the current sentence evidently isn't clear enough, since all the suggested paraphrases missed the point. The intent is that if society has general agreement about the day's layout, then society gets a lot of advantages (due to synchronized scheduling). It's not that we have general agreement that DST is good (we don't), nor is it merely that most of us use DST (it's obvious that we do); nor is it even that we agree that the day's layout confers many advantages (most of us have never thought about it). Admittedly the point is a subtle one, but in my defense I'm trying to use a single sentence to summarize a key point in a long paper by a winner of the Nobel prize in economics. Anyway, perhaps my explanation can help you suggest better wording? Eubulides 16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you!

Hi Phoebe,

Thanks for helping out with William Astbury! He was one of the first biographies I worked on here, and I still feel affection for him; he seemed so full of life and enthusiastic about science. And of course, he basically did all the pioneering structural work in molecular biology, even if his models weren't quite right.

I'm glad to meet you, too; what a nice serendipity! :) I've been here almost a year, and I can't believe that we haven't crossed paths before. I'm more of a knitter, and I dabble some in science; but I have been working on library science, too, sort of. That is, I've been working on the Encyclopædia Britannica, which is now at FAC. By the way, thank you so much for doing such a beautiful job with Ephraim Chambers and his encyclopedia; it really helped me! :) Willow 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LC

See that talk page. My email is active. I work at WP odd hours, almost always at least 20:00 to 5:00 UDC though not necessarily continuously, but often longer at each end, like now. DGG 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to this whole mess are at my talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now, another response. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew!

Hey Phoebe,

Thank you so much for your good wishes! It was your Support that turned the corner for me; I was feeling a little despondent then, thinking that hardly anyone liked the article, no matter how hard I worked on it. Your word "lovely" fell like gentle rain upon the parched ground beneath. Now that it's an FA, I feel a wonderful serenity, like when a beautiful story comes to a close — although I know that people will dispute over it, still it feels as though all is right with the world. Willow 10:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LC Articles

IRT the LC articles, yeah...

I wasn't wild about having it in Wikipedia because I wouldn't personally look to see them there. But they definitely do belong in a wiki. Wikisource seemed liked a reasonable place to me. I'm definitely glad they are back in some form. —mako (talk•contribs) 13:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicite and Wikicat

Hi Phoebe, I hope you're well. You may already be familiar with the m:Wikicite and w:Wikicat library-related projects on meta. We are now preparing to test this system on a password-entry wiki we have at my college - we expect to have things uploaded in the coming weeks. If you would be interested in helping advise in "piloting" this project please let me know here. Cheers, Walkerma 23:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Covell Drive

Thanks for your Wikipedia guidance.... it helped tremendously. I'm informed... and I hope they are... Ben HVX 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#RDF + Wikisource + Zotero

I remember that you are a librarian and I was wondering if you could comment at all on this discussion or direct us to anyone else with a library science background that might be interested in advising us.--BirgitteSB 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking of you

Hey, sweetie =) I was just trundling through WP-land and I was thinking of you, so I thought* I'd say hello. I hope you're having a lovely and delectable weekend. *hugs and happiness unto you* -Kenllama 17:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- RecentChangesCamp sounds like fun, and kind of wacky. What does one do at an in-person wiki? -Kenllama 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: DSB template

Hi Phoebe, {{DSB}} works nearly the same as {{cite encyclopedia}} [1], except that a few of the parameters have already been filled out. Cheers, —Ruud 00:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reference search

Hi Phoebe, I wandered by your userpage and noticed the line "I will individually work with anyone who needs help finding or verifying sources." I have one that has me stuck. I am currently trying to expand and reference Rwandan Civil War. However, there is a huge block of text introduced by an anon on a rotating IP, and moved into the current article, that is both more detailed than any of the books I'm using while still appearing to be kosher. I would much rather source the statements than remove them, but posts for help on identifying the source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force and Wikipedia talk:Africa-related regional notice board have gone unanswered. I don't suppose you can give me a lead? Thanks, Banyan Tree 06:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see your talk page -- I'll try, but it's not my area. -- phoebe/(talk) 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teehee

I admit, I laughed Raul654 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

omglatwpaot

cat:del-admins, fools and money (1 2). and don't forget TKO.

+sj +

Nature (journal)

Hi Phoebe, that's interesting. There just doesn't seem to be a good spot for journals on the GA list, huh? It's interesting because on the one hand it's a publication (the media section), on the other hand it's about science (but there's no general sciences, in that list), and even then, it's really largely of academic interest (education section, i guess), even though it has a general audience. Of course, I think the sad thing is that nothing like Nature ever got to GA before, but we have at least 50 manga series (no offense intended if you like Manga, but I think you probably catch my meaning). --JayHenry 15:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fan stuff doesn't really bother me. I'm a little disappointed with the frequency with which it shows up on the Main Page, but other than that, it's not as if I'm forced to look at it. And I think that people who want to improve the seriousness of Wikipedia need to focus on improving core topics, rather than AfD-ing accurate, if uninteresting to me, "fancruft." But I digress.

I can't take credit for Nature. I found it in good shape and saw that all it needed was a little polishing. A general sciences category sounds good to me and I'd suggest we propose it at the Good article talk page, although it'd be nice if we could identify a few more members first... --JayHenry 19:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you in Taipei!

Hi Phoebe, and thank you for the nice feedback about Can-we-link-it! I'm looking forward to Taipei, although until I saw the Tourism coordination page, I hadn't realised that anyone was getting there early, so I arranged my flights to spend a few days in Hong Kong beforehand instead, to get more used to the heat and humidity (I'm coming from the middle of winter in the Southern Hemisphere). And if any tours do get organized that would be cool, because my partner was looking at the two Hacking Days and wondering what to do in Taipei with them ... I guess if nothing gets organized, there's always the Lonely Planet guidebooks + a sense of adventure! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 09:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onvia

Admittedly, I do have more to learn about companies on here. Sorry for the mishap. (Though I'm wondering why 2 minutes is fast to get tagged; many nn-articles get tagged within 1 minute in my experience.) Also I have been known to double check or have second thoughts on some articles, so in the end I hopefully don't make as many mistakes as I would've. Cheers and happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 minute is execrable! not a reflection on you, just the system. I am increasingly convinced CSD should be gotten rid of altogether; it promotes bad faith. -- phoebe/(talk) 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gluten

Thank you for your suggestions, which are very good. I'll work to implement them and ask for your approval after I have finished. I can detect some confusion, on your part, about the anatomy of seeds, so I'll find or draw a diagram to clear things up a bit. Wugo 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe, I should wait until more is done, but am eager for your comments. I've added a diagram and an explanation of gluten's natural function. Is the drawing good enough? Does the explanation help? Am I on the right track? Wugo 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better! a good little article about a core topic. -- phoebe/(talk) 17:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As you can see, a recent contributor has wreaked a bit of havoc with gluten definitions and gluten sensitivites. I intend lying doggo for a time, until his fervor has abated, before I correct the scientific errors and resuscitate the grammar. On that happy day I will beg you to to evaluate again. Gratefully, Wugo 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kirk

Yes, I was talking about Paul Leland Kirk. If you can send m a copy of the Cyclopedia info by email, please do so. You'd have my eternal gratitude. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed on Mgm's talk page that you found a lot of references for this person in a biography index. Can you tell me which biography index you used? It would help me a lot with other research. Key to the city 10:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I noticed I overlooked your reference to the biography index. Nevermind the question above. Key to the city (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SF Meetup

Phoebe, Thanks for the invitation. That is a tough day, but I might be able to make it based on time and location. Please keep me posted. --Kevin Murray 16:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phoebe, I'm currently scheduled to be traveling next weekend so I probably won't be able to attend, but I'll look into it. Thanks very much for contacting me. Malpern 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley

I was wondering if you had time in the next few weeks or months to look over Joseph Priestley. I have put the article up for scientific peer review because I need someone to check my explanations of his experiments and discoveries. From your listing at the HPS Wikiproject, it looked like you might be interested in JP. He is a historical personage who did science. :) I would greatly appreciate the help. Awadewit | talk 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco 3

Thank you again for organizing it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for me too. It was really fun and I hope we can have it regularly. Let me know if you need any help organizing these events. I'm more than happy to help.Giovanni33 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this. =( Did anyone notable show up? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh, not notable in the "warrants an article" sense ;) ... maybe for Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco 4! phoebe/(talk) 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Merging pages into Wikipedia:Resource Exchange

If you read the merge tag, it says: "Discuss" and it is linked to the discussion about the upcoming merge. There, I had written out my arguments and proposal. You can still read it at the Resource Exchange talk page. And I did notify everyone that had the first edit of the involved projects. After I left my merge template and notifications I waited for over a week, and I only got two reactions.

My main arguments: the projects had the same goal: helping people find documentation for their edits, and if you spread that goal over a number of projects the editor has to look all over wikipedia to find his resource help. If we bundle our efforts we can function a lot better. Plus two of those projects were pretty dead, so by merging we can save the information provided by those dead projects. Key to the city 08:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over a week is not so long for two projects that are "pretty dead" -- it's worth assuming that the editors interested in them aren't logging in that often. Not everything has to happen quickly.. -- phoebe/(talk) 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is relatively fast. But it's not irreversible, so what's the harm in trying a different approach? Isn't this how Wikipedia works? All I did was follow the 'be bold' guideline and I even used the discussion page, merge proposal templates, etc.. I didn't want to anger anyone.

I do get the feeling that you are annoyed with me, though.

For the record, I still didn't get any reaction from the main people involved in the old projects. But if you feel that the new approach isn't the right one, you should propose a split or a big revert. Key to the city (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pubmed

Thanks for your effort, i answered [2] on my disc -- Cherubino 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you

I've responded to the Wikipedia-specific part of your question on my user talk page, and would gladly continue that conversation there. If the question about how my life is going wasn't just politeness, feel free to email me and I'll answer, but I don't really feel like publishing an answer. (I'm afraid I'm not part of the LJ generation.) - Jmabel | Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post

Can you get access to the pdf for this article for me? 2 Die I only have access to the New York Times archive. Its for the Eddie Schneider article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas! I don't have online access that far back either. It may not exist (they're all on microform instead). -- phoebe/(talk) 17:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It exists, I bought 10 others. But at $5 each its getting pricey. The New York Times now provides free access from 1984 onward. They made $10M from fees, but they would have made $20M from ads if they let everyone through the paywall for free. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... most major libraries probably have the backfiles on microfiche, which would save you some fees -- phoebe/(talk) 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meta humorous?

[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Page Numbers & Adding customizing sig

Hi Phoebe. I've been wondering about citing page numbers from print sources. If I'm citing a bunch of different pages from the same book, is there a way I can can use the short ref name="ibid" format but apply different page numbers, or do i have to use a long-form reference for each page? i haven't found documentation on this. please help! thanks and joys =)

PS> and any clue how I can get the "talk" link to work in my sig? I copied and pasted the same raw code as shows up in yours, changing phoebe->kenllama, and my talk link is mysteriously unlinky -- ideas? PPS > Well don't that beat all? Now it works... scratch that last.

gratzi! Kenllama/(talk) 16:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not that I know of, re: ibid. Bah! Something worth coding. -- phoebe/(talk) 22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply, sweetie =) i wonder how crazy-hard it would be to write something that would support something like <ref name="phoebe" page="45">. Cuz that would be way cool... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenllama (talk • contribs) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be easy to do with templates, but harder to code into the tag itself. Worth suggesting... phoebe/(talk) 01:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SF meetup

Thanks once again for setting up the meetup eariler today. It rocked, despite the spill. Hope the next one is better, let me know if anything new comes up with that Internet Archive tour. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Real-Life Barnstar
		For your dedication to Wikipedia meetups, and that Kat given you the RL version

That's pretty awesome. Thanks. -- phoebe/(talk) 22:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Contents

There are some replies to your post in the discussion on the placement of contents pages.

I'm trying to get down to the underlying reasons, to see how these lists differ from other lists, and why they are or are not covered by Wikipedia:Lists. I'm contacting everyone in the discussion. Please have a look. (Nice to see you again). The Transhumanist —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Facebook about to be deleted

Hi, as one of the people with a picture on Wikipedia:Facebook, figured you might be interested in knowing that it is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please improve this article if you can."

I would like to beg your assistance. There is an article I initiated and I would like to improve the article to meet "Wikipedia's quality standards." Please be my personal Wizard of Oz and give me some Good Advice. Please. The article I would enjoy improving is Falls of Neuse Road. Thank you. Master Redyva (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SANDWICH

User:WLU/you should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich ... +sj + 10:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see the old codgers league... : Category:Wikipedian League of Old Codgers +sj +

I would like it to be noted for the record that i like neither mustard nor ham sandwiches. -- phoebe/(talk) 22:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADMIN?

I've been looking at your contributions for about two weeks now, some missed - most covered, and would like to nominate you for adminship. You look like a great candidate to me, and hope you accept. Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I really appreciate the vote of confidence. Not right now, however... perhaps in a few months. Best, -- phoebe/(talk) 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, alrighty then! :) I saw you here most recently. And not meaning to be a "big brother" (as to speak) I've been "tracking" your contributions. No matter anyway, I'd be delighted to offer a nomination in a few months. And thanks for getting back to me! :) Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 22:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my biog deleted!

Hi Phoebe

Long time to speak - I am far too busy and admittedly this is silly but...you have left a couple of notes on my account - about my biog being deleted I really have a SERIOUS problem with that!

Yes, it is vandalism to delete other people's pages, and that's exactly what wikipedia editors are doing to my biography - VANDALISE IT

I am a long time contributor and user of wikipedia, yet I find the deletion of my profile profoundly offensive and unfair

There are dozens of biogs on wikipedia of friends or colleagues of mine who are not 'more famous' than other and who have also entered their own biogs! We are all professionals in different fields and have done whatever pioneering work, and given talks and lectures and written articles and taken part in conferences

why Jaron is in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier

have dozens of examples

I object! this is deeply discriminatory

who can I complain to?

I had taken a lot of trouble in writing my biography on that page, and now is gone - heck tell that idiot who deleted my biog that it will not end here!

PDM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgalaxy (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. -- phoebe/(talk) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediaondvd

Phoebe,

I think there was some issue regarding Mastercard vs Visa - it would accept US dollars from one but not the other. This was a problem with the French bank, who had a lot of security checks on foreign (i.e., US) credit cards. Initially they rejected all foreign cards, until Linterweb persuaded them to waive some of their over-the-top rules. For the next release it will be much better, we hope, but for now - could you try using a different card. I'll email Pascal. Walkerma (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aha! grazie. -- phoebe/(talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my biography

Ho Phoebe

I appreciate your reply

Let's start deleted those silly biographies now then I have a list of people and articles on wikipedia that I think should be deleted

There are hundreds of peoples biographies on wikipedia, why delete mine? I honestly do not have the time to write that blurb up again, I will eventually but its not a priority now

Can I point you to biographies of people that should not be there in my view How can I delete them? Would that be right? What makes you, or any other editor on wikipedia in a position to delete my biography an not the bigraphy of all the other people who have logged in with a different user name to create their entry?

thanks for taking the time to reply cheers pdm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgalaxy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]