User talk:Rodasmith/Archive 1

This page has been archived. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Rodasmith/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I've been watching that strange article Survival techniques for a while, unsure of what direction it's going to go. Your addition looks pretty good. Hope you stick around.

-- Joyous 22:41, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Seijuu Sentai Gingman

Looking back, something went wrong with my revert; it was supposed to revert some poor edits, and ended up reverting the decent ones (though I have some reservations about some of the copyediting). I've corrected my mistake. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Μελ Ετητης. The Rod 16:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle3 could sure use your comments on location: so far we have no clear consensus. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C# vs. C♯

Rod, I am painfully aware of the differences regarding the naming of C Sharp; I actually ended up creating the "Language name" section as a result. I am embarrassed to admit I've been a part of the "edit war", however I have a strong feeling about this issue, as "lame" as it may be. I've done some more digging on the issue and I must relent on it, with protest. I'll post over in the discussion page on exactly why and probably, but it does appear that ECMA (and eventually ISO/IEC) would be the ultimate authority.

Anyway, for some background of my involvement in this, this was my first go at mucking with the title. I tried to please as many people as possible, only having the sharp symbol in the {{wrongtitle}} template. As well, here's where I ended up creating the "Language name" section.

Also, my comments in the talk page:

P.S. you'll want to send comments and messages to users in their talk page, not their user page, as you did here. I didn't notice your comment until I saw the C# naming fray. If you had placed the comment on my talk page, I would have noticed the system message that appears and been able to respond right away.

Instead of what we have in the Language name section now, would you mind responding to that e-mail and request that we be allowed to use their response as MS' official statement on the subject? Either that, or request that they change their FAQ if it is indeed "inaccurate" as you put it? (CC'd from the C sharp talk page) - Chris 20:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, Chris. I'll ask them. The Rod 03:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the work you've done corresponding with Microsoft. I think this really helps to solidify the topic. - Chris 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oblique projection

That was a good job on the article, it is much improved now. I've removed the insufficient context tag. GregorB 18:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Fonda allegations edit war

Hi, Ordrestjean. Would you care to discuss the Jane Fonda "allegations" edits on Talk:Jane Fonda? Following is a copy of my invitation to do so:

"these allegations have been dismissed as an urban myth" vs. "these allegations have not been confirmed" is at least on the verge of being an edit war. One side claims "it is easy to prove something happened, it is nearly impossible to prove something never ever happened". It seems, though, that "the allegations have not been confirmed" implies that there are some who still support the discounted allegations. Since the Snopes article referenced immediately after the statement discounts the rumors, it seems more accurate to say that the allegations have been dismissed as an urban myth. Do some claim that the Snopes article is inaccurate? The Rod 21:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only say that Snopes jumped to a conclusion. Again, it is quite possible to prove something happened, but it is nearly impossible to prove something never happened. Perhaps a tweak to the wording is in order. Inconclusive perhaps? Ordrestjean 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. How about we excerpt a little from the Snopes article? I suggest this revision:

Although e-mail messages allegedly from former POWs state that Fonda handed over information from U.S. prisoners of war to NLF insurgents (better known in the U.S. as the "Viet Cong"), the POWs named in the e-mail messages "have repeatedly and categorically denied the events they supposedly were part of."

Does that sound neutral? The Rod 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein

Hi, when you took out the dubious Leibniz claim (that was a good catch), do you remember if you reverted to the version by Stephenb? A half dozen edits prior to your reversion also appear to have been vandalism! In particular, the Leibniz claim was put in by an anon, 201.145.5.216. Reverting to the last unvandalized version can be a real problem with this article if no-one very quickly (first minute) notices and reverts a recent vandalism). ---CH 12:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cut out the vandalism I could see since Stephenb's edit, but left the changes since StephenB that looked good. Here is the diff between my version and the previous by Stephenb. I haven't yet mastered keeping up with rapid vandalism. The Rod 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with keeping POV in the Einstein article. I've been watching this article for a few days now, and User:Licorne adds that line back in every chance he gets. Rklawton 03:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biofeedback

Do you think you can judge the recent edits in the article? The list of effects looks more as laundry list then serious one. The article was just few days ago very much improved by User:Katsam and it would be nice to keep it in good form for some time.

(I do not pretend any qualification here - I am asking since I once had few EEG biofeedback sessions and tried to read a bit about it. Usual items improved by (EEG) BF were incontinence, ADHD and only few more. ) Pavel Vozenilek 00:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am not qualified to judge the "side effects" edit. I agree with you that it does not appear to be substantiated. With that concern in mind, I sought verification, so I sent an e-mail message to the author of the website to which the recently added external link belongs. That person turns out to be the author of the recent edit. He has no actual clinical sources for the list, but offered some contact information:

Wrom: UQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOYIYZUNNYCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYO

Sent: Fri 12/30/2005 2:23 AM

To: Rod Smith

Subject: RE: Biofeedback on Wikipedia

Dear Rod,

This list originated in my clinic as part of a justification research project I

conducted while Lexicor Medical Technology was under such intense scrutiny from

the FDA. The Neurological Devises Section of the FDA Medical Devices Division

has never rejected my results supporting claims of beneficial side effects that

could be caused and measured by biofeedback training. But, as a result of that

study, the FDA ceased demanding that Lexicor delete such claims from our

training manuals and marketing materials.

It might be interesting to call some executive in Neurological Devices Section

of the Division of General, Restorative and Neurological Devices and question

them about those side effects. The last time I checked several months ago the

Assistant Director of General Surgery Devices which has jurisdiction over all

biofeedback devices told me the FDA had no problem with claiming those possible

beneficial side effects. I've been preaching that message ever since. His name

was Neil Ogden 301-594-1307. The other person I spoke with several years ago is

not the Acting Director for this Division. I assume he still feels the

beneficial side effects of biofeedback training can be openly discussed. His

name was Ted Stevens and his direct line is 301-594-1184.

Thanks for fixing the link. <g>

Have a Fantastic 2005!

John

So, I don't know what to do with that list. It seems relevant to describe some of the benefits that people attempt to attain with biofeedback, but the list may be going overboard. The Rod 01:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel very positive about that list of side effects, either. Even if it's all true, the way it is written seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry.Katsam 07:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS

Hello there! Thanks for your note. Arguably, the component terms in AIDS are not proper nouns per se. For comparison, see

HIV (human immunodeficiency virus)
SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), et al.;

contrast such terms with acronyms like

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation)
NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), et al.

However, I think the spell-outs (if not obvious) require the letters to be highlighted somehow, hence me rendering the initial letters lower case and italicised. Moreover, Europeans tend to render the acronym as Aids (with only the "A" upper case).

As is evident in the examples above, I don't know if there is a standard per se regarding this (namely in the Manual of Style), but there should be. Titles and related words in article leads should be bolded; however, since, the component terms of AIDS are not proper nouns (and are rendered lower case in the entries for AIDS in both Webster's and Oxford dictionaries), the same should hold true in Wp.

I see someone else has restored the prior style (which now looks odd given the different rendering of HIV below), so perhaps this should be discussed there? Let me know if you've any questions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Admittedly, it does look odd, but I couldn't see another way to dually format it yet address the proper-noun argument.

All lower case would be better than the current state (w/initial caps), so go ahead and (er) be bold! In any event, we should copy or note this on the AIDS talk page and perhaps suggest appropriate edits to the Manual of Style. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: great work on the AIDS talk page and subsequent edits. I've weighed in s'more there. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!

Yikes! I did not realize such an edit war was going on over there. Sounds like some heavy duty POV pushing is going on there. Nrets 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. There is no reasing with the guy. Any disagreement sets off a long diatribe. I guess it's best to wait until he goes away. cheers, Nrets 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have unleashed the worst in this user, based on his stated plans [1].

I reworked the paragraph, see what you think. Nrets 02:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the email, seems like a lively bunch of experts! Nrets 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll refrain from making judgements. Nrets 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Please explain why you selectively archived and reorganized away this comment on Talk:AIDS reappraisal?

...I've been thinking, it seems the entire concept of a "mainstream view" is nothing more than a media construct -- a random scientist would present their findings and solicit comments and criticism, not portray conclusiveness a certain way. Some segment of the media would be complicit in vast error should the purported mainstream view of AIDS be incorrect.

Thanks. zen master T 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Before I archived the page, you had two posts that included "Some segment of the media... would... be... complicit.... in vast error should the... mainstream view of AIDS be incorrect." I removed the second one, perhaps incorrect in thinking that you had already made that point. I left the first appearence of that sentiment because it also supported your request for a source of some statement on the article page. Please accept my apologies if my removal of the second appearence of that sentiment offended you and feel free to re-insert it if you wish. Respectfully, The Rod 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sgactorny RfC

Hi, I have filed an RfC to complain about user:Sgactorny abusive behavior. If you have something to add, or simply want to endorse it please go here. Thanks. Nrets 04:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Virim

Added refs to AZT mechanism of action as you requested. I'm also trying to keep a neutral POV in this section - some strong opinions seem to be creeping in. Sorry about erasing the other refs on my last edit, but they were a different format from the rest of the article. And if posting a note here isn't the best way to communicate back, please let me know -- I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn proper procedures... Virim 14:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Virim[reply]

AIDS reappraissal rewrite

Hi Rod,

I might have overwritten some of your edits, maybe you can have a look at it and see if I removed some crucial things --KimvdLinde 16:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPs and blocking

As far as I'm aware of, IPs are only blocked permanently if they are proxies, otherwise, they are only blocked temporarily (although the block can be quite long). Did you come across something that said otherwise somewhere? --HappyCamper 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just getting back to you on this edit here - it must have been some message you left regarding an anonymous sockpuppet. I remember seeing an IP talk page with 3 IPs listed together as possible sockpuppets. I was going to suggest a solution to help out, but it seems that others below have already taken steps to do that. I hope it works out. See you around! --HappyCamper 11:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: {{sprotect}}/{{protect}} on Henri Poincaré

Hi, Thebainer. You (and later Splash) {{protect}}ed the Henri Poincaré article to stop an edit war there... Anyway, the POV-pushing anonymous editor is committed to the position that Wikipedia state facts, regardless of controversy, so it is unclear how to unprotect the article page without restarting the edit war. Would you suggest WP:MEDCAB or, perhaps, an RfC? The Rod 02:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've tried to follow the developments on the talk page since it was protected, without much success. I don't see how any of that discussion is relevant on that page, it belongs on Talk:General relativity if it belongs everywhere. I think a good place to start would be for the anons to get an account each (point them to WP:REG) so that the talk is easier to follow. Another good step would be to leave the page protected but fork a copy to a subpage (something like Henri Poincaré/draft) to work out a wording which can satisfy everyone. Remind them about WP:NPOV also. Give that a couple of days and see how it goes. Would you like me to handle all that or do you want to do it? --bainer (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Feel free to handle that if you'd like. Otherwise, I'll do so tomorrow (I'm at GMT-8), as I have to leave now. Cheers! The Rod 03:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new account Licorne appears to be the anonymous editor who took your advice and registered, but he or she will not directly say whether that is the case. Instead, the editor replies to simple questions with exclamations of "false accusations".[2][3][4] Thus, I don't know whether to continue encouraging the anonymous editor to register. As you may already know, the Henri Poincaré POV editor(s) have been pushing the same POV on the Albert Einstein page. The talk pages thus fill quickly with non-productive posts. The talk pages need considerable summarizing for anyone new to participate, but I hesitate to do so since I am now involved.

In any event, since the only registered editor doing so seems unwilling to engage in civil conversation on his or her talk page, I see no alternative but to file a user conduct RfC. Do you have any further suggestions? The Rod 05:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me half an hour or so; since no-one has taken the opportunity to write up a NPOV treatment of the topic, I might just do it myself (using the summary that now appears towards the top of the page). Once I've done that I'll post it to talk, and if everyone approves, I'll put it in the article and unprotect it. If there's more argument and abuse, then I think RfC will be the way to go, but I'd like to exhaust this option first. --bainer (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm finding this alot more difficult than I thought, since the summary is a little light on the references. Perhaps if you prepare an encyclopaedically-worded version of that summary, and then post it to the talk page. I think that would definitely be a good last step before going to RfC. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it all irrelevant to the Poincare page and the consensus wants it moved elsewhere. If the page is unportected 66/69/Licorne will re-insert the disputed section. He sends me threatening emails telling me this. I suggest that you freeze the discussion page as well. It is pointless talking to him. Can we just freeze everything, ignore him and hope he goes away? E4mmacro 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the message which I deleted from Licorne's main page. I was about to put it on Licorne's talk page but saw the question asking if he was in fact 66/69, and decided I would wait to see what response there was to that. Thanks. 130.102.0.176 10:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein POV-pusher

Hi there. I've decided that this has all gone far enough and it is pretty clear that the POV-pusher on the Einstein/Poincaré/Hilbert pages really does have nothing to contribute and is doing nothing but wasting a lot of time. I'm compiling evidence for a RFC and probably eventually an ArbCom case, with the specific assertions that the user has 1. been engaged in rampant POV-pushing and intellectual dishonesty, and 2. been badgering and insulting other Wikipedia editors. Unfortunately compiling the evidence is very time consuming, given that it is spread out over many pages, different accounts and IP addresses, and involves sorting through dozens of diffs. If you want to take a look at it, and contribute anything you are able to, the temp page I am doing this on is User:Fastfission/RFC. Thanks for your time! --Fastfission 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have tried to discuss things with him in a civil manner for over a month and a half, and it has come to no positive results, no progress, and, if anything, an increasingly strident attitude from him (with me, he responds almost completely in insults at this point). I think that we've more than satisfied the discussion phase of things. --Fastfission 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I have the little evidence page drawn up, I'll send it his way first and explain that I think the habits exhibited are contrary to policy and need to be stopped, before filing the RFC. He is very fond of demanding "proof" for every accusation made against him, so it makes sense to compile it all first, I think. There seems to be little doubt he is the same user (and as you have pointed out, he has never denied it). --Fastfission 20:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rod! I ruined your simple question to Licorne about 2 IP addresses. Tecnically we don't know if "STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS" refers to me (where I listed five IP addresses), or to you, who asked him about two IP address. I should know better by now. Sorry once again. E4mmacro 08:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

care to open the straw poll you suggested, so that we can get our list of Licorne sock-puppet IP addresses refreshed? Or do you think it's better to wait until it's become obvious that Licorne won't respond to his RfC? (I'm not at all clear on how the RfC process is supposed to work...) --Alvestrand 07:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course!

Good God...I didn't know the thing was still there!

I'm sorry.

Is there a better way to delete it? A faster way? --VKokielov 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Gay rights

Do you still object to template 8? Are okay with template 14? See Template talk:Gay rights Wuzzy 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm still OK with template 14, and my objection to template 8 is weak. It blurs the use-mention distinction, but only slightly so. I everyone else likes it, I'd withdraw my objection. The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pimation

I honestly have heard it used in college before, but I sadly can't find a good hard reference.

Reversion of seminal lesbian separatist

Note that seminal may confusingly suggest semen: that would be becuase they both share the same root. I have to admit a little guilt here: I chose to re-instate "seminal" rather than replace it with "important" or "influential" to try to work out if the "semen" angle was the reason. I'm happy with your change :) lmno 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cleaning links

Hi, thanks for your comments. I have not so much seen a recommendation to change weed to weeds, but I looked at it form this point of view. Yes, it may make it ever so slightly harder to read the "code" for the page, but having one standard is probably best and when people do it to article's like that, it is distracting.(To me anyway, and I know the grammar is wrong :-). I was aiming for User readability over Contributor readability - mainly because the person editing the code should already understand the subject, but the article should be as easy as posible to read from "layman's" standpoint. What are your thoughts? Fosnez 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment that we should primarily focus on ease for readers instead of editors, so when you see a link like "article's", which displays awkwardly as "article's", it is best to change it to "article's" so that it displays completely blue (i.e. "article's"). For other links, like "articles", the Wikimedia software automatically displays it right (i.e. "articles"), so the standard is to leave such links in their shorter form. Enjoy editing! The Rod (☎ Smith) 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I spend most of my time in "edit mode" in articles, and so until you pointed it out I hadn't noticed that it automatically corrected the ]]s bit... don't i feel a little foolish now :-S Fosnez 22:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winterberg contributor

Yes, I think that User:17.255.240.78 is a Licorne sockpuppet. Seen it before, with identical behaviour to his other socks - see User:Alvestrand/POV-history. --Alvestrand 17:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

confusion con't

1 and 3 are synonymous in this context, so #1 and #2 are what are contradictory. In #1 you seem to be indicating a universal negative, then in #2 you indicate a particular positive. If that's a fair reading, then it's self-falsifying.

If you were, on the other hand, merely making general or offhand remarks about the way that the intro tends to be going, then that warrants no discussion at all, and you're free to make edits as you like; though I'd reiterate that the "definition" section in its present form does cover facts about usage, and not semantic meaning (i.e., that regarding the relationship between science and philosophy), and so is a very happy candidate for potential material to the intro. Lucidish 00:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

"1. [We should] alter the style of the intro so that it describes the article's topic instead of a word.

2. [The article would include] an extremely brief one-liner definition [of the word philosophy]."

It seems to me that the full logical structure of #1 is something like, "The style of the intro can be either about the topic, or a word; it is currently about a word; we should alter the intro so that it describes the topic."

The word "instead", which is recovered in part as an "either-or", is mutually exclusive, meaning you can't have one without the other. As evidence to show that this is a decent logical translation of the use of the word "instead", let's take another instance. Say I'm at a diner, and I can have either a sandwich or a sausage. I make up my mind and say, "I'd like a sandwich instead of a sausage, please." We can expect me to be very surprised if the waiter were to bring me both. I explicitly wanted one, and not the other.

That being said. For the sake of economy, for the purposes of this conversation, we can reduce the important information in #1 down to: "The introduction should not describe the word "philosophy"." I read this as a universal claim, as in: "For all of the introduction, it should not describe the word "philosophy"." A universal claim is just one which has the word "all" describing its subject (in this case, "the introduction"). And it's a negative universal, because you're denying something about that universal, as indicated by the word "not". I admit, the phrase "the introduction" is equivocal in terms of quantity, and so it's very hard to say that it logically defaults as meaning either "all of the introduction" or "some of the introduction". But by convention or habit, people pragmatically treat it as defaulting as an "all" statement.

For #2, I called it a "particular" because it discusses only a single thing, namely, "a brief one-liner sentence". And it's positive, because it doesn't have any negative word in it, like "not".

If these were accurate readings, then they are contradictory. It would be like saying, "All dogs are fat", and then saying, "But I own a slim dog".Lucidish

Indeed, that was my interpretation, and how I arrived at it. It's on the basis of the words, and the conventions that govern them. I'm happy to collaborate, too -- and I would actually be being a very poor collaborator if I failed to, in the first instance, try to understand what you meant according to your own words (and the conventions that govern them). I'm all for charity, but had seen no evidence in any of your comments that you were taking anything but an absolutist position on this matter. Lucidish 02:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made a comment per your request, though it hardly seems worth comment.

In the spirit of reading you on your own terms, I could only have chosen to interpret one way or the other after you approved of KS's interpretation, and not before it (for the reasons I indicated above). Of course, after you approved of it, I expressed confusion. The principle of charity would have applied in a case where there was not any other significant pragmatic weight, and there had been reason to see a genuine equivocation at play. Lucidish 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By no means am I saying anything about you, I'm just giving a summary of what happened from my vantage point. Assuming good faith, you probably had certain intentions you wanted to communicate that I missed; I'm just pointing out that the words that were used, along with the conventions that I know in how to interpret them, led me away from your intentions. I'll try to ask more questions of clarification in the future, if I get the intuition that there might be a lurking equivocation. Lucidish 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some guy

Re: Snotty Message Get over it. Willrobbo 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And stop leaving obscene messages on my talk page. Willrobbo 23:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrograde

I presume the current contents of Retrograde (disambiguation) are work in progress. If so, I'll leave it to you to remove the vandalism. --Portnadler 10:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Rodasmith, could you do me a favor? I can't open for editing any complete article (see the source of my frustration?). Please, go to the [Aleksei Losev] article, and change

"With regards to Western philosophy of the time, Losev criticised severy the structuralist thinking."

to

"With regards to Western philosophy of the time, Losev criticised severely the structuralist thinking."

Thank you. --Barbatus 21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Neptune rvt on 23 April, 2006

Sorry, I missed that the anonymous (signed Sally Mae) also deleted the other uses. I should have reverted rather than deleting the ‘signature’. Regards Eurocommuter 18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]