This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

January 2007

Template:fact

Resolved

Self-reverted. My apologies for the trouble. — TKD::Talk 11:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just for my own edification: What is the problem that it causes, if you have some time to explain? Thanks. — TKD::Talk 12:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy who wrote to me at User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 1, in the topic called "{{or}} code", knows more about the details. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pocket billiards

Hey Stanton. How's everything? Just wanted to alert you to an edit, and try to get some clarity. My understanding was that we were going to be using the phrase "cue sports" for organizational purposes, which I think is a fine compromise. However, in the page pocket billiards the phrase was being defined in the article as if is has a wider meaning in the outside world, which as far as I know, it does not. I made an edit removing its internal use from the article. Anyway, I'm now trying to see if I misunderstood the intent of its use.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Template:Cuesports-bio-stub

[My original post was on Amalas's talk page:

Can you 'splain what that major edit is about? Some of it doesn't make any sense to me, like the removal of the documentation (indeed, of all of the <includeonly> vs. <noinclude> distictions), the addition of things like '*Peopld" (which I'm guessing is a typo), etc. I s'pect that there is some kind of general all-stubs template overhaul going on, which is cool I guess, but I'm not sure I agree with every change here. As for the general effort to clean up the cue sports stubs, I'm all for that; sorry I did not chime in when these things were up for discussion (was on a real-world-stuff-to-do wikibreak), and the changes so far are pretty much in the direction we were going with all of this. I'll try to further clean it up later, after Billiards is renamed Cue sport (which is after the article gets a substantial rewrite), and so on. It's all in-process, though a little stalled over the holidays. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied here 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ]

There is a standard format of creating stub templates, located at WP:STUB under "creating the stub template". I've been trying to make all the templates I come across follow that standard. Regarding the 'documentation', you don't really need to tell people what categories something feeds into because it's already listed at the bottom of the page. To me, that just seems redundant. Also, the HTML comments are not really needed because when the category needs to be changed, I will do a "what links here" and easily find the template and change the category to the new name. (I hope that sentence made sense - basically, I will find it, no need to put in comments) Finally, the "Peopld" is indeed a typo. It's supposed to say "People". I've fixed that. Thanks for your questions and I hope I was able to answer them. I also hope that I'm updating things in-line with Billiards and Cue sports and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports. If you need anything else, let me know. Have a great day and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to make sense of the differences and learn the canonical format (I based mine on other sub templates, but I guess they were not canonical either.) I may restore (for a while) some of the HTML commenting and stuff, because they were there as reminders to self about categories to create/fix and other to-do items; the file in question is in the WikiProject Cue sports project space, not the Template space, as it is a draft in-progress. As for the overall stuff you're doing with these categories and stub names and so on, yes, it is appreciated and mostly in-line with the WP:CUE intent. There'll probably need to be some name twiddles, but it's all going in the right direction! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that many of the stubs do not follow the standard format, which is why I've been trying to bring as many as I can back into the standard. I suppose I'd be fine w/ the HTML comments. I generally find them to be unnecessary, but that's just my preference. Hopefully the Billiards / Cue sports thing will be straightened out soon and everything will stop being a mess. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Albinism semi-protection

Resolved

[My original post was on Nishkid64's talk page:

Can you please undo your un-protection of that? It's getting vandalized regularly, and always will be without the semi-protection. The semi-protection was intended to be indefinite and was well-justified on the semi-protection request page and with the admin that semi-protected it. The number of non-vandal edits by random IP-address users is so close to zero it's funny, and of the handful of good-faith edits in the IP category, most were not good edits (faith not withstanding). This is a science article (some addl. cleanup still needed, yes) that is slated for inclusion on the CD-ROMs, and keeping it clean is a LOT of work (mostly on my part). I have real work to do and can't monitor this article 24/7, so it's going to be sitting there in a trashed state every other day after some jr. high school IP vandal has hit it yet again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied here 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ]

I don't think it's really necessary now. There has been around 10 or so vandalism edits since December 31st, a span of 9 days. I have the page watchlisted as well, and I'll help deal with vandalism there. If it gets too out of hand, then I'll unprotect. Sorry. Nishkid 64 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I remain skeptical. For one thing, the last major vandalism (blanking of the most important entire section) went unreverted for three days, even with anti-vandal bots watching it. For another, I fail to see how consistent almost-daily (and sometimes multiple-daily) vandalism - and it is malicious vandalism, not innocent sandboxing - doesn't qualify as problematic enough for indefinite semi-protection, especially when it often takes anywhere from 3 hours to several days for vandalism to be reverted on that article (which was the justification of the admin who semi-protected it). I'm not seeking full protection, just a means of thwarting IP vandals. As noted in the original post seeing semi-protection, the vast majority of IP edits are vandalism, and the vast majority of good edits are by established users who are logged in. The tiny consequence of people having to register or log in to edit this frequently-attacked article is worth it. I warned about this consequence on the talk page of the article for weeks before seeking the semi-protection, and not a single person (registered or otherwise) objected, so I'm not sure what your late-to-the-game objection now is. <puzzled> If you disagree with the reasoning of the admin who semi-protected the page, please take it up with that person instead of unilaterally undoing the semi-protection decision, which was arrived at through the proper processes. Albinism is not an article that will be simply the subject of occasional random vandalism; it is a frequent target, and always will be (unless discrimination against people with albinism somehow vanishes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, pages are not allowed to be indefinitely protected, so I don't know where you're getting this information from. Gnangarra shouldn't have protected based on a lack of noticing vandalism. He should have gone to WP:AN or some noticeboard, and requested people to watchlist the page, so that vandalism would be clearly detected. Also, what one admin says is not a final decision. He protected the page temporarily--I don't believe he said anything about indefinite protection anywhere (this page doesn't even warrant long-term protection). Anyway, I'm sorry if you feel this way, but I personally think the page shouldn't be protected just yet. I might change my mind if there is a significant increase in vandalism every day. Nishkid 64 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm getting this information from the Wikipedia Semi-protection Policy page! And it specifically says that articles can be indefinitely SP'ed. To quote: "A page can be semi-protected by an administrator in response to vandalism from multiple anonymous or newly-created accounts, where blocking them individually is not a solution [...] Semi-protection is usually a temporary measure, and lifted once the problem is likely to have passed, but some articles with a history of vandalism [...] may be semi-protected on a continuous basis" (emphasis added). Notes: Albinism is in fact the target of "vandalism from multiple anonymous...accounts, where blocking them individually is not a solution"; semi-protection is only "usually" temporary; when it is not and is instead done "on a continuous basis", it is because the article has "a history of vandalism" and "the problem is [not] likely to...pass...", both of which perfectly describe the Albinism article. See also the primary source of WP:SPP: While Jimbo uses "minor bios of slightly well known but controversial individuals" as an example of a type of article that could use what he calls "extended" semi-protection, every rationale he gives for ExSP applies to this article, which is "subject to POV pushing [and] trolling, including vandalism", "it seems likely that ... not enough people have [it] on their personal watchlists to police [it] as well as we would like", "Semi-protection would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often", and especially: "semi-protection has proven to be a valuable tool, with very broad community support, which gives good editors more time to deal with serious issues because there is less random vandalism. Because the threshold to editing is still quite low for anyone who seriously wants to join the dialogue in an adult, NPOV, responsible manner, I do not find any reason to hold back on some extended use of it". (This last makes it very clear that Jimbo was making a point about frequently-vandalized articles in general, not just minor bios.)

Unilaterally reverting another admin's formal-process (e.g. WP:SPP) actions on the basis of your disagreement with their thought processes or decision rationales without discussing with them doesn't seem useful or appropriate to me (and I never said such actions were "final"; they are generally respected, though, and discussed before being undone). I guess I'm outgunned because I'm not an admin, but I think you are mistaken with regard to WP:SPP's meaning and intent (as documented above), and with regard to Gnangarra's intent and reasoning; he/she clearly understood that the problem for this article is unending, not a temporary issue, and indicated nothing contrary to my request that it be SP'd, which was a request for ongoing SP, saying only that an editor could request that it be unprotected and that "theres no specific time frame" for its semi-protection. I don't see any evidence that any editor has in fact made such a request, and you being an admin and therefore a registered user, you certainly don't need to make such a request/take such an action for yourself. Really, I don't think a discussion with me is the proper venue for you to express disapproval of another admin's handling of a situation, and I belive Gnangarra would strongly disagree with you, with regard to this article's needs: "any admin with fives minutes to spare digging through the history would have also protected the page"; and with regard to your characterization of his/her dilligence ("He should have gone to WP:AN or some noticeboard...): "I've directly asked here for some more editors to add [it] to their watchlist". D'oh. I think you've simply missed part of the discussion. PS: Note how long ago that noticeboard request was made and how little it has helped. This article was massively vandalized three or so days ago, and left completely broken for days because there are not enough eyes on it. The only consequence of SP is that it's inconvenient to a few people, the vast majority of whom are vandals (with regard to this article, anyway. Non-vandal IP edits are quite rare on it). What's the problem? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My god...you write a lot. Okay, I'll protect this page because I don't want to keep on reading your books of work on this semi-protection policy lol. Anyway, your article really hasn't been a heavy target for vandalism like George W. Bush or RuneScape, which is why I still don't believe long-term semi-protection is appropriate for the article. Nonetheless, you stated some good arguments, so I will re-protect the page. Nishkid 64 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And, yeah, I do my homework. As for the GWB article comparison, I think it's unfortunate that the SPP even uses that as an example, because it's a misleading one. Yes, the article if oft vandalized, but it is also watched by LOADS of editors - it arguably doesn't actually need the protection at all! Heh. Articles like "albinism" need it more because they are and will remain vandal targets, yet do not have a huge, dedicated cadre of editors protecting them. GWB, though, I bet if I went and vandalized that, the vandalism would be reverted in under 30 seconds, even if I did it at 3:30am Central (US) Time. Anyway, this was why I cited in such depth to Jimbo's rationale for extended SP in the first place - his reasoning is explained clearly enough that it is plain that the intent is not just to protect mega-popular articles like GWB. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Missed most of this but my thoughts I also put a notice at RC patrol when I protectd the article explaining that I had reviewed its recent edits only to find that frequently vandalism isnt revert for more than three hours. In response to SM request for how long an article remains protected I said that generally it gets unprotected when an editor requests. WP:RFPP is for an immediate problem resolution, its not a "formal-process" any decision taken doesnt require my input before the article is unprotected. Gnangarra 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for letting me about the discussion Gnangarra 11:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I just thought it both odd and unfair that your decision/rationale (as I understood it at the time, anyway) appeared to be being skewered in your absence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names

Resolved

Are you aware of the sub-thread Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names, and the thread of which it forms part Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#capiche_and_.7B.7Balternative_spelling_of.7D.7D? Enginear 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I was not aware of it. The borderline personal attack on me there has been responded to there (at Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer parlour) and at the policy page in question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Albinism reverts

Resolved

[My original message to Morgan was posted on his talk page:

Thanks for your interest in this article and efforts to improve it, but many of your changes have had to be reverted because there are no references cited to back them up. Please do not make factual changes to science articles without citations to reliable sources. See this talk page topic for a detailed explanation of the specific reverts. PS: The other editors of that article are well aware that the section in question is already lacking sources for much of its information, but adding unverified claims only worsens the situation; and while the article is under heavy development, especially with regard to source citations, as you can see it is from the article history, removing material that is in the process of being researched, as you did in several cases, is not helpful either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied here 08:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ ]

I am an optometrist. I corrected some glaring errors in the page about the visual signs and symptoms of albinism because they were totally and amazingly wrong, obviously written by somebody who knows nothing about the subject. Really, I couldn't believe how bad it was, almost every word was wrong. Abnormal routing of the ioptic nerve to the brain? Good grief. They claimed that astigmatism is the same as strabismus? Wow! And saying that nearsightedness and farsightedness are caused by albinism? Nonsense. I would have thought people would be happy that an OD came along and corrected it, but you came along and reverted back to the amazingly wrong text? All you had to do was ask me and I would have scanned you my optometry licence, and my grades in optometry school, which were all A's. But you reverted back to the uncited text and say I can't change uncited text unless I make citations myself? It makes no sense. Please send me your email address, I will scan my degree to you, and you can revert back to my corrected text. My only citation is myself, nobody can cite a better source than a licensed OD, that's all we do for a living. I'm not going to bother finding the names and pages of reference works and texts on visual science to use as citations, I can write any of those books myself. Please respondMorgan Wright 05:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[Sorry this reply is so long, but there's actually a lot of material to cover.]

Dr. Wright, your personal qualifications are not at issue, and no one needs to see copies or your credentials to believe you about them. Your edits were reverted ("back to the uncited text" as you put it, from your equally uncited text - that's the important part) on policy/procedure grounds, not because I think I know more about eyes than you do. As a Wikipedia editor you are held to precisely the same standards as everyone else here regardless of your professional background. Please see WP:V and WP:RS; these explain what "source" means in the Wikipedia context (not what your text above seems to indicate you think it means). Wikipedia articles (and changes to them, most especially edits that contradict prior material) need to be sourced. You express disdain for the idea that you should have to go dig up reference citations, because you feel that you are a reference yourself and could write the sources that would be cited. But you are not a reference yourself here, per Wikipedia Policy, at WP:OR (an important read, especially at WP:OR#Citing oneself!) - assertions (provable or not) of special knowledge or authority hold no weight whatsoever here, by design - only sources do. Please do not conflate personal expertise, knowledge or wisdom with encyclopedically-verifiable reference citation. I strongly encourage you to register you objections to the present article text, in detail, on that article's Talk page; and to edit the article directly with citations to reliable sources for each of those substantive edits (if you want to improve the article yourself rather than wait around for others to do it after you flag things for us to fix on the Talk page.) But just editing the article without sourcing the claimed facts will simply cause people to revert the changes, because from a policy/process perspective your changes are not any more plausible than those of anyone else, being unsourced, and (as such) are making unsupported changes to article text that is presumptively valid but just unsourced. It may not be the best system/tradition to have, but it is the one that we do have. I understand that you feel strongly that many facts in that section are completely wrong (I have suspected as much myself). But you need need to demonstrate this, not simply assert it.

I have to point out, however that some of your edits were based on plain misinterpretation of the article text (which did NOT in fact say that astigmatism is the same as strabismus, and did NOT suggest that albinism exclusively causes the very common ailments of near- and far-sightedness, though it still needs clarification edits to make the real but amiguously and vaguely [respectively] expressed, meanings clearer, and needs to cite references in both spots.) Also, some of your edits appear to be questionable overgeneralizations, in the "ALL albinos have..." vein. Such broad statements demand reliable reference citations, even more so than more specific, qualified statements. Please note, however, that most of your additions of new material, and even some deletions of rather questionable text, were not reverted, and are slated for the same fact-checking as the rest of the section.

Your input would be very welcome in this article (and I really, personally, mean that), provided the new material is sourced, otherwise it is simply adding to the sourcing problem, resulting in an article that might make you personally happier, but is precisely 0% more reliable to anyone trying to determine the reliability of the article. Any experienced editor here would revert such changes, because for Wikipedia purposes neither statement is more demonstrably true (or false) without references, and "original research" is invalid. Anyway, I will be very happy to show you how to create quick and easy reference citations if you haven't already read the docs on that. It's a snap, really.

PS: As to the "neural pathways" thing, someone else has challeged that as suspicious, but not been able to refute it, while a long-time good-faith editor here swears it is sourceable and is looking for the source. I and some others could probably be convinvced to lean in favor of removing it until it can be sourced, but I hope to show that it either can be sourced or cannot easily be sourced fairly soon, so I'd ask that you hold off before deleting it. The wording strikes me as too precise for it to be likely that someone just pulled it out of thin air, and again a so-far-trustable editor says it isn't bogus, and there's no particular reason to believe that is an outright lie. New stuff comes up in this field all the time. Heck, even the long-standing tryrosinase +/- distinguishing characteristic has allegedly been shown to be bunk (though that, or at least the fact that there's a dispute about the issue, also remains to be sourced). Who knows what's next?

PPS: There actually is an avenue of activity, or "program" if you will, on Wikipedia that does call upon field-specific expertise for article review and improvement recommendations. Let me know if you are interested, and I'll find the link for you.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Marking topic "Resolved" as it has moved to Talk:Albinism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Wiktionary talk page

Resolved

I added sections to your Wiktionary talk page (using the normal [+] mechanism.) However, your addition of the dysfunctional #REDIRECT [[]] prevents them from appearing. Cross-project redirects do not work. Wiktionary templates do not render on Wikipedia talk pages, anyway. PLEASE change that non-working redirect, to a commented soft redirect.
I have apologised publicly, rather than privately, on w:WT:BP.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I went and fixed my talk page over there.
Thanks, and accepted. :-)

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR FIXING IT! By the way, wikt:WT:WT#Rogue shortcuts (cross project redirects) is probably what you were asking about. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was the one! The weird thing is the WT: shortcuts only sometimes work; compare WT:WT and WT:albino. So I guess I have to stick with slightly longer-form definition links like wikt:albino. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cuegloss

Resolved

What a great idea! Seriously, if you knew how many times I have had to go back to a different part of an article to copy the full name of the glossary to make the link... well probably you do, considering you invented the template to deal with just that pain in the ass. Have you considered adding a a gloss about substituting the template? I can't think of any situation where it shouldn't be (WP:TTN has good language for this).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on why people want templates subst'd, other than for things like {{test1}} and so on. I kind of liked that it's not subt'd, since it keeps the source code of the aritcles more readable/shorter and it 'advertises' the template. Most uses of {{citation needed}} and other inline templates I run across aren't subst'd either, and their docs don't ask them to be. I'm guessing there may be some esoteric reason for this, but it's not something I've ever investigated... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading up at WP:SUBST, the benefits vs. costs analysis says to me "don't subst". The especially strong reason not to is that the link to the Glossary page is hard-coded in the template, so if/when it moves to Glossary of cue sports terms the unsubst'd template would work seamlessly, while subst'd templates would require hundreds, more like thousands of manual edits to fix the resulting redirects (I don't personally care about such redirects, but some wikipedians are really hard-core about that for some reason. Go figure.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, love the edits to the glossary.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Keen! Glad they are of use. I was a little concerned that I might be doing too much all at once (both at the G., and at Eight-ball, which I did a major overhaul on. And I still think it needs to be split into Eight-ball and Blackball...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying but I'm going to use it with subst: because if I make two thousand links using it, and a vandal comes along and vandalizing the template, making it link to autofellatio, that will happen across all those links.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that, I beg you; you'll be undoing the whole point of the template, i.e. prevention of incredibly tedious manual editing; I'm almost dead certain that the Glossary will eventually be Glossary of cue sports terms, and that change would require literally thousands of edits to subst'd templates, making the template useless. If the template is vandalized, it'll be fixed - it's on my watch list, and I'm on WP a lot - and if it's repeatedly vandalized it can be Protected. There are loads of templates that do similar things, used much more broadly, such as {{OMIM}}, {{OMIM2}} and {{OMIM3}}, which are used in literally thousands of medical/biology articles, and this vandalism issue hasn't been, um, an issue. :-) Vandalized templates that affect multiple articles are easy to get protected (cf. {{citation needed}}, etc.), far more so than articles. The only common vandalism targets in Template-space appear to be the warning/dispute ones like {{citation needed}}, {{test4}}, etc. WP:CUE articles don't even get vandalized much anyway, mostly just "[insert user's name here] is the greatest player alive!" silliness and occasional section-blanking. Not such a huge deal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem opinion

Resolved

Since you've commented on the page before, please tell me if you consider this edit an improvement. Thanks. >Radiant< 15:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'd say it is "interesting". It's certainly a very different take. I think both versions could be merged to produce something as pithy as Francis's version, and as explanatory of yours+others' pre-rewrite version, with little violence to either camp's goals. I haven't weighed in on the talk page there in a long time because I think that Francis is being a bit self-evidently cranky and that this will eventually sort itself out in consensus. But not all of his points are invalid. My personal main concern with the essay is that it (in the pre-Francis rewrite) can easily be interpreted to say that citation to statements by J.W. are necessarily fallacious argument to authority, and this is not true; some policies directly cite Jimbo statements as authoritative. The issue really seems to be that it is difficult to determine (for most Wikipedians) when Walesisms are policymaking and when they are not, and further difficult to discern when non-policymaking Jimbo commentary might be leaning toward eventually becoming policymaking (because few presently policymaking Jimbonisms were not preceded by non-policymaking Jimbo commentary on the topics in question). If you see what I mean. At any rate, I think that at least some of the earlier text has to be restored or the article doesn't make sense - it does not explain that it is a reference to argument to authority at all. I'll comment on its talk page to this effect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure we can find some compromise version. >Radiant< 09:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fanwanking and "in order to"

Resolved

It's funny, the two biggest highlights of my allnighter — learning about fanwanking and elevating my hatred of "in order to" to the next level — are addressed on your userpage :) — Deckill er 13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, full truthful an' all 'at, I done reckon I be aimin' t' please, an' whatnot. PS: Did you see the last week's episode of Stargate: Atlantis? I just can't believe what happend with the Wraith! Omigosh! I think I should go edit the "wraith" article to be a disambiguation page... >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)