User talk:Realist2/Archive 25

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I notice that you tagged the page Image:Britney Spears Fire.png for speedy deletion with the reason "copyright violation". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because because you haven't specified the site that you say the image was copied from, I can't establish that it is indeed a copyright violation. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:PUI process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a shot from a music video so his only claim to it would be under fair use, I didn't mean to tag it as a speedy, an error on my part, I meant to tag it under no fair use rational (which it needs) which I've just done. Sorry about that Stifle, my bad. :-/ — Realist² 23:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No Jacket Required

Hello again! I am thinking of nominating the article No Jacket Required for Featured Article candidacy, and am looking for some advice. I have never nominated a featured article before, and was wondering if you think there are any current problems with the article that would detract and quickly fail the nomination. Or, if you have any advice that you'd like to give me before I make the decision of nominating the article. Thank you, and have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, it already has, per [1] here! And best of luck to your RFA, if you decide to go ahead and try it! And nice to see your work getting the recognition it deserves (Your barnstar) :) Have a nice day and feel free to take your time! CarpetCrawler (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Will You Be There

Hey Realist, just spent over 3 hours reviewing you, and I think you're ready... if you are interested, take a look at my essay how to pass an RfA, answer the questions, and jump in. I advise not transcluding your RfA unless you have 2-4 hours to watch it, people at RfA can be funny and demand answers right away from candidates when the RfA goes live. If you want a co-nom, it's up to you, but I advise no more than one other person (2 would be ok, but 1 is best.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally! – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you currently have 3 noms... three really is the upper limit. Anything more than that and you will start garnering opposes. Hecks, some people don't even like 3! If anybody else adds a nom, I would strongly encourage you to get rid of one... keep it to 3 total noms!

Good Luck, take your time with your answers - I've no doubts about your policy knowledge, contributions or commitment. Don't take anything too personally, either, as people can be ruthless (which you know all too well)- just become a piece of meat for a week. – Toon^(talk) 00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Toon05. Advise noted :-) — Realist² 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, I'd say the three noms are appropriate; given that Balloonman, myself, and RH+E rarely agree on anything, it shows broad support from different "factions" at RFA. With anything I say, go with Balloonman's advice over mine, as my RFA nomination record is not exactly stellar (number of successful RFA nominations: one). – iridescent 18:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My support awaits. ayematthew ✡ 22:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One successful nom... is it too late for me to back out ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, nice signature BTW. :-) — Realist² 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work at improving and fighting off vandalism on Circus‎, "Womanizer", and "Circus"!‎ TheLeftorium 14:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oww, thank you, seriously this is appreciated. I was beginning to feel like a lone sailor on those articles, it's really hard to keep all of them clean you know. Thank you again. — Realist² 14:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You did that just to force me to change my nom didn't you ;0---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn it, I'm causing trouble already :D — Realist² 16:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what's going on here...finally. Useight (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Brazil Charts

Why Brazil is not added in the chart CDs Circus? These references are officers here in Brazil. Is there a bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel teodoro (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What is considered official chart Brazilian then? Thanks for the information! =] Gabriel teodoro (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

You are probably right. Once I finish, it will get overwhelming.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

I see you're going for the mop soon, good luck! I've had your RfA page in my watchlist for a while just in case so it isn't quite as stalkerish as it first seems, or is it? Anyway, I'll be sure to vote as soon as (ish) it comes live.

Btw, we never did work on vitiligo! This week'll be fairly stressful for you but I suggest we get to it at some point after that!

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's still on my to-do list. The ex-mas holidays are just around the corner, we will do it then, if your free. :-) — Realist² 23:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Recording artist"

Would love to hear your thoughts on this issue, since the term is used in this article as well. See Talk:Mariah Carey#Recording artist. Orane (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My response is viewable here. — Realist² 12:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I was the first... I'm NEVER the first

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I always wait... Good luck---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I was very reluctant to go ahead with this, I spent 5 hours reconsidering and came close to withdrawing before it began. I just want to do my best, if things get nasty I'll withdraw. — Realist² 15:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be defeatist. You are entitled to a proper consideration of your merits. Good luck. --Rodhullandemu 15:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just glad you transcluded now instead of Saturday. I would've been on vacation by then and probably missed it. Useight (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, things moved along quicker than originally planned, Thanks for your support BTW, very much appreciated. — Realist² 15:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. I really hope you didn't think my question unfair. Apparently one of the 'crats did, but when I responded to him on his talk he just blew my concerns away.... typical 'crat really.... Still, again it was not meant to be a negative question - I fully expected (and received) a positive response and good answer in the hope that it might dispell possible opposes (and the support after mine seems to indicate it helped at least one other editor) Pedro :  Chat  16:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro. — Realist² 16:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No Balloonman I was first, Take care!.--intraining ^{Jack In} 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, very true ;-) — Realist² 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not withdraw. Kingturtle (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it is not worth the tolls, I don't need them that much. — Realist² 17:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? IRC? No one is talking about this on IRC. Friday is in fact one of the people well known to be against IRC. Majorly ^talk 17:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want it closed or not? I don't want to get engaged in an edit-war over RfA archiving. Caulde 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do, I would do it myself but alas, I don't know how to. Much appreciated. — Realist² 17:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'm sorry you felt it necessary to do that. Good luck with future endeavours. Caulde 17:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(<--) Wow, that was odd. I saw your RfA in the list, thought "I'll go and support in a moment", came back to RfA and it was gone! I'm not sure what happened which prompted the quick withdrawal, but for what it's worth I believe you'd make a fine admin. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude... you could have passed. It's a sincere minority who were trolling that RfA. Ah well, maybe next time. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what happened? I just got a new batch of "wrong queue" jokes and now I have no Support column to place them in? I am sorry to see this close, truly. :( Ecoleetage (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You should write a book, Eco. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Realist, I'm sorry that ended so quickly, I'd finished my review and was planning to support provided you said something reassuring about the blocks. ϢereSpielChequers 18:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you ran and already withdrew? WTF? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree... This is a record... if you were going to withdraw after 2 hours on the chopping block, I would have expected you not to run in the first place. I mean, I know that I passed on the IRC warnings I got. I can't help but say that I'm more than a little disappointed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

↑ What he said. I appreciate you may have had a good reason of which I'm not aware, but withdrawing with 17 supports and 5 opposes is, well, odd. – iridescent 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry if I came accross strong in my last statement. I would lying if I said anything other than, I am a little shocked and disappointed that you closed your RfA after only 2 hours. But now that some time has passed, I have to suspect that there is more going on behind the scenes that I am unaware of. RfA is about he candidate, not the nominator, thus, if there is anything I can do let me know.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I blame Kingturtle

I tried to head of IRC problems by a sensible question which you responded to with an elegant and thoughtful oppose. Kingturtle blew that appart neatly. I believe your withdrawal was premature but possibly inevitable. I am disgusted by the way admins and bureaucrats on this site seem to think that only their petty politics matter. I look forward to offering you another strong support in the near future, hopefully when a few of our current crats have been desysoped. Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I blame iridescent---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Unless I've missed something, 3 noms wasn't an issue. So much for my WP:RFB, then.</sarc> --Rodhullandemu 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ec:Read the last sentence of Iri's comment and smile---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Help me, what IRC issue? For what it's worth, I was planning to support. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I heard from two sources that there were people who were going to ensure the RfA failed. One of them explicitly mentioned who and that it was on IRC. The other was a little more vague, but it was clear that they were talking about IRC as well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand why somebody would run for the hill so earlier in an RfA. Quicker than I'd expect, but nonetheless comprehensible. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ecX2-Yeah, I think what surprised me is that we knew it was probably going to fail and that it might get ugly. I thought that since he decided to run, knowing that there was a movement organizing against him, that he was prepared for the onslaught. Again, I have to assume that there is more behind the scenes that I am unaware of, and thus hope that everything is ok.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is now the second time I have caught wind of some sort of brazen cabal talking behind close doors. IRC should be fucking banned. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All en.admin channels should have nothing to do with Wikipeia. And Kingturtle should consider his position. His laughable recommendation to discuss this on Ballonman's talk page at Realist's RFA juxtaposes with his cowardice and lack of skill in discussing my question on my talk. If it wasn't for the fact we've lost Realist's help with the admin bit for probably 6 months I'd laugh. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it also just reinforces the pervasive belief that discussions should be held in inappropriate places. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Apologies to Realist this took place on your talk, as elements are not wholly relevant. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I just make something clear? Unless this took place in the private admin channel, no discussion of this RFA took place on IRC. None whatsoever. Not even the slightest mention as far as I can see. There's no cabal out to kill Realist2's RFA. Majorly ^talk 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle would recommend you ask Ballonman as opposed to the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what Kingturtle recommends. What I don't like is seeing IRC get blamed for Realist2's withdrawal. It had what, four opposes, including one from Friday, who is well known to be against the whole idea of IRC. IRC had nothing to do with it. Majorly ^talk 22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I will note that I have always found Majorly to be trustworthy and honest and if he says IRC had nothing to do with it then I have to believe him. Pedro :  Chat  22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

At least, it wasn't discussed in the public channels. People do of course have their own private channels. But that's as speculative as saying they discussed over email, Skype, phone, whatever. Majorly ^talk 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, you don’t use IRC; Balloonman doesn’t use IRC. Balloonman heard about an “IRC conspiracy” through rumors that were, in his own words, “all second hand (at best).” Yet you wanted to “head off” this alleged IRC conspiracy, and instead you simply created more drama.

I didn’t think Balloonman’s mention of the rumors were appropriate, and I think you called more attention to the rumors with your question. They were 2nd hand rumors that had no merit. The cabal you fantasize about wasn’t behind this one.

Lastly, stop throwing blame around; stop bullying and stop scapegoating. Kingturtle (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with King here... the people that I was warned about never showed up and I happen to know that at least one of them was editing during the RfA.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of consideration for Realist2, may I suggest this is not the proper venue for dissecting a corpse. I'm too embarrassed to contribute to it. --Rodhullandemu 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so in light of Majorly's report, perhaps we can just squash this now before the inevitable mudslinging arises. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wisdom. Apologies again for the orange bars Realist. Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, look there were multiple offwiki issues with this RfA, not all of it my nominators know about. I emailed Balloonman at 5.20 saying that I was feeling reasonably optimistic about the RfA, despite everything. By 5.24 I had withdrawn. Clearly something happened, now would you all very kindly discuss this elsewhere. Thank you to my supporters. To those who colluded against me, in their different groups, well done. — Realist² 22:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Will email you. Feel free not to respond. Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

*Sigh* - you are valued you know

Me neither. But time passes. Plenty of people really value your work here - don't forget that. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second this, even though I was going to oppose the RfA. For the most part, I am grateful for your prolific work on Wikipedia. Thank you. -kotra (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings Kotra, your oppose was the least of my concern, although I knew it was coming, I hope your opinion of me changes over time, I will try to take some of your advise. I'm happy that you had the guts to air this on wiki. — Realist² 22:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure my opinion will change for the better. Most of my problems are things from the past and will recede into irrelevance as time goes on. Best of luck in the future! -kotra (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This sucks...

...I was going to support. I'm so sorry this happened! ayematthew ✡ 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Chin up

Just a quick message. I'm not sure what happened with your RFA, but I have to say that no matter what has been said, the RFA is not about your nominators maintaining their reputations, it's about the candidate and whether they are ready and able to take the extra buttons. Clearly you aren't in the right place right now for whatever reason, and there's nothing wrong with that; to be honest you've contributed a stupid amount to this project without the buttons, and there's no reason why this won't continue. I hope this experience (and the bitterness of some) doesn't leave a sour taste - recognise that the project would be all the poorer without you - believe me, it would. Hopefully you'll carry on as normal, and in future the mop and bucket will be waiting, should you choose to run the gauntlet again. Best, – Toon^(talk) 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

........

How the hell is that vandalising?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.50.34 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Realist, I don't think this was vandalism. The genre is written with capitals. See New Wave music. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he was altering the capitalization, but he was also altering other aspects of the genre info box. I had to reinsert pop music after him for a start. I was meant to tag him for the same thing as the caution warning I gave him. I must not have scrolled down to the correct label on my twinkle device. Alternatively, maybe twinkle automatically labels a level 5 warning for original research as vandalism? Anyway, he did go on to vandalize and cause disruption, he's blocked for that as well. He's also a sock puppet of User:Jamalar. — Realist² 17:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Update, twinkle automatically labels a level 5 warning for original research as vandalism. Complaints should be directed at Mr Twinkle, not me. :-) — Realist² 17:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha no worries, it wasn't a complaint, just curious. I noticed he was sock soon after I posted this anyway, so I look silly now. Nevermind :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, you have court onto something. Why on earth is twinkle labeling a level 5 warning for original research as vandalism? Seems a little harsh? — Realist² 17:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because if the user has ignored four other notices, it's almost guaranteed to be vandalism. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Suppose, still a little concerning, anyway, the right thing happened in the end, just a little...odd. :-/ — Realist² 17:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not too bad, it's just because if someone has ignored four warnings it is vandalism, since vandalism is defined as deliberate attempts to disrupt the encyclopaedia. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Block

Why I will be blocked? --Dindo94 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You won't be blocked if you listen to your warnings. Stop adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. If you do use sources make sure they are reliable. No linking to Youtube, it is rarely allowed. — Realist² 00:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Its Britney B*tch!

peer review open. Wes already got started on it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen my to-do list atop? :-) — Realist² 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

yes! hehe. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I wanna get it done over X-mas, I got other stuff to do as well mind. — Realist² 00:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything in Time

Thank you for the weirdest talk page comment I've ever got. :) Good luck with your own projects. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit too agressive with component charts

While I agree with your basic stance, the only thing the guidelines say is not to include a component chart when it charted on the main chart. If something charted on the Billboard Hot 100, that means not to include Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Digital Songs, or Hot 100 Singles Sales. You could still include Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay or Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Sales, so long as it hadn't charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks. I agree with you that people are going overboard, but it's misleading to delete an unrelated component chart and say that you are following WP:CHARTS.—Kww(talk) 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not misleading anyone, how fucking long is that list allowed to be exactly, no more than 18? I'm sorry but 3 US charts is a joke. — Realist² 03:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to not having over 18 - then why does "Womanizer" have 25 charts on it? And besides, Kww is right about what is allowed... the rest of her singles have the Dance chart CloversMallRat (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, siting what's happened on other articles doesn't mean anything, maybe all the others are wrong too. Yes there's 25, but that doesn't give you the right to make it 26. We already have 2 US charts on there. — Realist² 03:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the Womanizer has a reasonable chart list, or talking about one particular article. I've just noticed that reasoning in your edit summaries. But yes, 18 is the max, and chewing it up with multiple US lists isn't a good idea.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been misleading, I haven't been too aggressive with my interpretation of component charts, I'm just following a long standing rule that we don't have 26 charts on a table. America has it's piece of the cake with 2 charts. I'm right, everyone else is wrong, or something like that anyway... — Realist² 04:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lady GaGa

Hi. I did not add unverified info to Lady GaGa. I have her CD and in the liner notes it states that her full name is Stefani JOANNE Germanotta. The reference that claims that her first name being Joanne is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemgrrrl (talk • contribs) 04:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you really did add unsourced information to the article, you just said so yourself. — Realist² 04:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-sourced an article from the UK newspaper THE TIMES, a VERY reliable source, that clearly states her name Stefani JOANNE Germanotta. Let's keep it that way, shall we.

Yep, thanks for sourcing it. — Realist² 04:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Careful: you really don't have a broad consensus on this one

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Womanizer (song). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Kww(talk) 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm ignoring all the rules today, if he wants more than 18 charts on a table he can argue for policy change. — Realist² 04:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If an administrator wishes to block me for "edit warring" on Womanizer (song) feel free. I'm off to bed now. If the block is for anything more than 2 days, please remove my WP:GAN nomination of "They Don't Care About Us". — Realist² 05:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me

Hey, J.delanoy just referred me to you (I asked for help). I need a second unbiased opinion in this debate I am having here. It is about a cover of Land of Confusion by Disturbed. The debate is about user interpretation. I am debating that comments such as "the soldiers resemble SS Nazi soldiers" are user interpretation without a valid reference, and his description of the music video (this debate has revolved around the description of the music video) is full of these user interpretations without valid reference. He keeps citing the video itself as a reference, and he doesn't understand that citing it would be fine if we were describing the events of the video (as I am, but every time I change the summary to something without that interpretation, he reverts me), but we can't interpret it ourselves and claim that as a valid reference; we'd need a reliable source stating the interpretations. Anyways, I basically just want another opinion to go in there, you don't have to side with me, I just want you to go in, check it out, and make your own opinion (hopefully making a consensus we all agree on, as this user refuses to with just me). If you could do this, I would be so grateful. I have to get off the school computer as I type this, and I won't return for five hours, so if you need to contact me, just drop me a line at my talk page. Thanks in advance. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look at it later today, I've only just got online, I need to check my watchlist and I need to have some food, but you will get a response later today, I promise. — Realist² 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

NJR

'Tis okay, take your time! CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)