User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 12

Hi, I need help SOS

I think there is someone who is simply targeting my contributions out of some personal bias. If you look at my User page and if you look at my entry "Infinitology" you might see my point. Best, shalom, Lightning-Feather 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Silly OR chart by Ultramarine

I can't get rid of it again without 3RR (she made a false report already, by adding in edits to completely unrelated sections). So I was hoping you'd be so kind as to remove the eyesore of the conceptual incoherent and unrelated-to-article chart of "GDP since Christ" from Capitalism. LotLE×talk 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

She added it again!

Your edit to the No Original Research policy

To what extent can an article "draw on" primary sources before we "generally discourage" it. Are you sure most readers will have the same understanding of "draw on" that you do? --Gerry Ashton 04:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of trying to destroy the No original research policy. ``Gerry Ashton 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Report on ANI

User:Ultramarine posted WP:ANI#Incivility_by_User:Slrubenstein, and I've made a suggestion how the situation might be resolved. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a question...

You seem pretty knowladgeable on Judaism-related things, and I was just wondering, do you happen to know anything about Jews for Jesus? I think im caught up in a bit of a dispute over it because a whole bunch of people just appeared on the talk page who, quite frankly, really seem to despise the group, and it occurs to me that on a fundamental level, I don't actually know much fundamentally about the subject of the article because I can't find any beliefs/statement of faiths/whatever's on their website, and I think some people are getting annoyed at me because I don't seem to show the proper opposition to them or something. And since you seem to edit some Judaism related things and seem to know alot of things about it, I was just wondering if you know anything really specific about this group. Homestarmy 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your request

Hi Sl. I've finally read through: Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary_sources_discussion. I'd like to help out, but I'm afraid I can't think of anything brilliant to say. Paul August ☎ 01:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming users

I appreciate that you're welcoming new users to Wikipedia, but I just wanted to remind you that you post comments on a user's talk page, not on their user page.

You accidentally did that to User:GetAgrippa's page. If you look at the talk page, you can see that I already welcomed him a few days ago.

Happy editing!

--Nishkid64 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Hi, could you comment at Wikipedia talk:No original research? I'm not really happy with the current wording of the policy suggesting that self-citations go in Talk. I think this is unworkable, unnecessary, and serves mainly to discourage experts from contributing in the field of their expertise. Either reverting to the previous version, or using a working that Jitse Niesen suggested, seem like the best options to me. Unfortunately, the Talk page seems to be dominated by trolls who make it hard to have a productive discussion. —Steven G. Johnson 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine at it again on Capitalism

I thought unprotection was premature. Her first action, as I would have thought, was inserting the same chart that at least a half dozen other editors have opposed both as not being relevant to the article and as violating WP:NOR (and that no one else supports). I'm pretty sure that as long as it is unprotected, she'll make the same change 3 times (but not 4 times) in every 24 hour period. LotLE×talk 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Slrubenstein for the words of encouragment. I would love to contribute to the embryology and Evolutionary developmental biology. I noted the embryology section was really lacking. Can I fill in a bunch without references and let it evolve, or is it best to go ahead and organize it and reference it as I go? GetAgrippa 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Trimming Capitalism history section?

What do you think of that? Care to opine at the "Quick Poll" I created at the talk page. Red Deathy suggested it, and I think it's a good idea. But I don't want to make a big cut unless there is consensus about it. LotLE×talk 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks Slrubenstein for the editing advice. I really like the neutral point of view principal, and I'll try to be methodical. Your advice is welcomed and I may call upon you for technical expertise. I often like to use recent publications and examples to support points, but I'll try to limit that. If I get too detailed and ramble send me a message "Keep it simple stupid". I am hopeful I can make useful contributions to the project. GetAgrippa 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahalo for the R&I talk archiving

Hey Slrubenstein, thanks for doing an archive on the R&I talk page...I think you're right, as we discuss intelligence on the page, we seem to mysteriously find our own IQs dropping rapidly :). It is nice to have dialog, but as you can see both Rikurzhen and I can get a bit long-winded. Your help is greatly appreciated! --JereKrischel 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Talk:Evolution

[1] was this edit what you intended? JoshuaZ 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected Jesus?

You can protect Jesus? I'll have trouble finding a BarnStar for that! I see one editor had done a couple of reverts, looks like over the date era notation. Does this warrant full protection of Jesus? Or did something else happen that I missed? ^rossnixon 08:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research

Hi. Since you revered Pproctor, I wonder if you could please contribute to the conversation we're having at the bottom of the talk page? I'd like to know your view of the issue. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In particular, at the bottom of this section, and towards the top/middle of this one, there are specific questions addressed to you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry and identity

I've rather liked your comments on the Karl Marx page - I just posted a reply to one of your latest ones on the talk page. What do you think?

I have just started a general discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump - search for "tagging". Would you care to join? Bellbird

Don't attack a fellow "Darwinist"

After crossing Dunc, etc. on avowed creationist Raymond Damadian's biopage by attempting to introduce a neutral point of view, I seem to be getting chased all over Wikipedia by people from the creationist/evolutionist pages. Reversions, deletes, the whole bit. What are the chances, out of 1 million plus sites, that all the hassle comes from people who post to a few common sites.

You are one of them. Ironically, I am very much a "Darwinist", having published one of the few examples of classic natural selection in humans [2]. As an admin, you should be well aware that it is forbidden to extend differences on one page to others. More to the point, the fact that you-all will do this to "one of your own" for daring to support a creationist even a little just reinforces the creationist paranoia that their views are being systematically suppressed. Pproctor 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection of WP:NOR

Do you really think it's appropriate for you to protect a page when you're invovled in the dispute? Why not use WP:RFPP? At any rate, I would sure appreciate your input on the talk page, where I feel we're making some progress, but really need some contributions for your perspective. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with the protection, by the way. It's just that it's already a touchy situation, and I know that people will go off the handle for smaller causes than a protection by someone involved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It would have been far more appropriate to go the normal route and request page potection, rather than to take it upon yourself to protect a page you're involved with. And since when do we protect for a "minor revert war"? Minor is an understatement. Negligible would have been more like it. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

People were starting to go back and forth rather than discuss, so protection isn't unwarranted. I was very close to requesting page protection. There's basically never any harm in getting someone less involved to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The latter was, of course my point. I know that Slrubenstein is a very good editor and admin, but the decision to protect would have better been made by another admin. I'm not necessarily saying that they mightn't have come to the same decision, but for neutrality's sake going through the process would have been better. Obviously, I'm not sure I would have requested that the page be locked yet, but that just my opinion and that and 65 cents will get me a cup of really crappy coffee out of a machine.  ;) •Jim62sch• 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a policy page. I believe policy pages should have a much much lower threshold for protection than articles. Be that as it may, my protection doesn´t block administrators (and there must be thousands by now). If someone fels I acted inappropriately and undoes the protection I won´t protest, but I do think it was warrented. As for expressing my support, one reason I felt free to protect is precisely because I had stepped out of the debates some time ago - making only minor comments about process (rather than arguments for any changes). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Thousands? I thought we were up to millions by now.  ;) Thanks for explaining, and I suppose I'd have to agree with you re policy pages. I'm not going to ask for unprotection, I just wanted to express my concern that it seemed raise the spectre of conflict of interest for you to block it. Good response to Awbrey and GTB, by the way. •Jim62sch• 23:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! SR

Perhaps my understanding of the situation is incomplete. It was my impression that you were largely the force behind the changes to the Primary and Secondary sources section; at least that's how it is in Jon Awbrey's version of events. Are you not still supporting a change to that section? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(reply to your post at my talk page) With all due respect, I don't consider him a troll, and I am convinced that characterizing him as one isn't helpful. I note that he has a tendency to wander into emotive ramblings, but he can be reigned in, too, in my experience. Lack of social skills no not a troll make. If everyone's happy with the current version though, I guess the whole Primary v. Secondary sources discussion is over? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a change to the primary and secondary source section. There was extensive discussion and the discussion was made into its own page. My sense is most people viewed the change as a simple clarification of existing policy, and two or perhaps three people argued against it without in my opinion any sensible arguments. I still support the clarification I proposed. Be that as it may, the only change I am aware of that was actually made to the policy was to change the paragraph on expert editors. I did not think anyone had made any change concerning primary and secondary sources yet. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You "did not think anyone had made any change concerning primary and secondary sources yet? My first cursory examination of the article's history leading up to the last two protections indicated that section flip-flopping between two different versions dozens of times. Did you miss that? Like this diff, which was you, changing the section that you think no one has changed? Am I missing something, seriously? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Jon Awbrey's version of events..." Beware the morass. •Jim62sch• 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but I'm actually pretty good at separating wheat from chaff with people like Awbrey. There is some good wheat in there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Defining people by descent

There is now a general discussion on this matter at Wikipedia:Village pump. Would you care to chip in? Bellbird 17:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Je n'accuse pas

Slrubenstein, I fear you must have mistaken my meaning. I have not accused you of trying to do anything underhandedly, I do not believe you have done anything underhandedly, and I don't know why you think I've accused you of anything but responsible editing. Please understand that I'm not agreeing with Awbrey's statements about you, I just don't happen to believe that he's a troll. That doesn't mean I think he's right about you or anything else in particular. Please don't upset yourself over some imagined slight from me. I am hosestly trying to figure out what's going on, and people are so goddamned defensive, it's difficult to get a straight answer out of anyone. I was asking you to discuss the changes to the Primary and Secondary sources section, because it seemed fruitless to have a discussion in which your perspective was unrepresented. I know a lot of discussion has already occurred, and I've read a lot of it, and if you're really just too fed up to continue, then just say so, and I'll leave you quite alone. Please accept my apology for any misunderstanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

comment on my user page

I enjoyed your user page. You have to be over the age of 45? I am way over. Not that it matters, but I see the knowledge and wisdom that only age can accrue. Of course wisdom has taught me that I'm usually wrong. Ironic ain't it! Hee, Hee, Hee. I don't see a lot of humor around Wiki land. Sad, if I can't have fun in my purusits then it just doesn't seem worth it. The comment above seems odd. How can your user page not be self-indulgent. Maybe I should cut and paste your page into mine and really mess with peoples heads. I'll become your clone, and I can't be accused of being self indulgent. Oh wait, no its not the Frankenstein monster, it is the Rubenstein monster.Hee, hee, heee. I do appreciate your words of encouragement and I will try to be bold. I have enjoyed minor editing. You have quite a record of contributions. Something to be proud of!GetAgrippa 01:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Euclidean space

Hi. Since you recently commented on Talk: Euclidean space, I wonder if you'd be willing to go back there and comment on whether or not the article has enough context/correctness. Cheers. Joshua Davis 16:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NOR

I am responding to your comment on my talk page. I invite you to watch that page and carry on the discussion there. --Gerry Ashton 00:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bible Translations

Please form a new article on Bible Translations instead of reverting the organization attempts of that section. Without such reorganization, you leave much tangential disorganization, especially when wealth of information for other translations in other languages can be had.192.31.106.34 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review/Ebionites

You are invited to a Peer Review of the Ebionites article. You can make a valuable contribution with your knowlege of Christianity, Judaism, and Jesus. Ovadyah 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your great suggestions. Ovadyah 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Advice

Thanks for the advice. I am not confrontational, nor do particularly like writing to make points in a discussion because of the slow and less dynamic nature of the internet. I am not thin skinned enough to feel slighted, but I do get frustrated (usually with the medium and not so much the arguments). I will try to be more diplomatic and seek consensus rather than just putting in my two cents. I don't like to appear egomaniacal or authoritative, but hope people are generally receptive to perspective and other published sources. I rarely like to make comments I can't back with numerous published sources, although I often communicate my concerns poorly. I am a nebulous sort unlike my wife who is organized enough for both of us. I will also consider your recommendation to do more that just edit sections. Thank you for the encouragment. GetAgrippa 16:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have collaborated in such a manner, but you know who and where they are coming from (they are a peer in the field). I did have one challenging experience that really was an ethical issue of misrepresenting some of the data, I took the tact of demonstrating the weaknesses rather than accuse anyone of unethical behavior. We slowed down the process and performed more experiments to address my concerns and published a significant paper I am quite proud of. Turns out the conclusions were correct, but we were all glad that we crossed that T and dotted that I. We later discovered another lab was ready to publish the same unique find. A visiting researcher to our institution admitted his frustration that we beat him to the punch. So we were both correct and reproducible. It could have turned out that we published a false conclusion and then the competing lab would have demonstrated our error. A number of papers I have published have been reproduced by others (a few letters to editors for failing to recognize my paper and expose their claim of novelty). Ethics in science almost needs to be taught in grad school with cases of nobel laureates to grad students being accused of fraud. It is a very competitive climate nowdays, especially with funding.GetAgrippa 00:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and sites for pursuing arguments. I will try your tact of asking other contributors such as yourself to review the arguments and give your opinion. I was surprised at the semantic battle over the policy article. I hope I was a help. It was a little confusing given the dates and different similar arguments. The primary source issue and POV are issues that I am concerned with, and I am wary of arguments that seem to want to qualify how much (50/50,etc)primary and secondary. I guess it depends on the subject to some degree. In science related topics it should be a no brainer.Thanks again!GetAgrippa 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Talk instead of including non-consensual statement on policy page

Hi I note that you seem to strongly prefer adding a statement to WP:NOR to what was asserted by Jossi to be the consensus version (Sep 13) after some edit warring had go on, during which I essentially abstained from participating.

Since I strongly disagree with your addition as explained on Talk ("secondary sources preferred" as well as under "avoiding primary/secondary thing" and elsewhere), I wonder why you keep on reinserting it without even commenting on the issue on the corresponding places in the Talk page. Regards, Harald88 15:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this change for a month, and there was a consensus to change it. One person's POV after a monthlong discussion is not going to hold up a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Which month? With how many participants) That information is essential on the Talk page, as it's not only off-topic but even incompatible with WP:NPOV as well as WP:V - as I tried to point out on the Talk page. Harald88 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to do this minimal amount of work for you. follow the link, look at the archives, and you can count how many days and how many participants yourself. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You sound like my wife

Slrubenstein, O.K. I am going to start small on Evodevo. I have been trying to multitask with work and editing in the evolution article. I don't know how many papers I've mentioned to get a point, not my point, across. I think the area is too contentious for my taste, but I understand why. Further, defintions and semantics have changed dramatically in recent years. When I read all the links I see the new definitions encompass most of my concerns, which is frustrating as I have wasted my time. Roland ticked me off one day, but it was a bad day and I had made a stupid argument. Kim van der Linde prompted my thinking how would your mother receive an article, or a child. So I was playing the devil's advocate. I would have probably done the same. I still have not found a balance in what is appropriate detail for an encyclopedia. I actually have gathered up too much research for the evodevo article, so, since it is an encyclopedia, I am going to tone it down into something concise and readible. Thanks for the nag, it keeps me focused. I had forgotten about it. There are many articles that have prompted my interest, and I would like to add or edit. Thanks, GetAgrippa 12:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, is the policy debate still going on or as this finally been resolved?GetAgrippa 13:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Just a note that you might have prematurely archived some talk sections at Talk:Jesus. I'd recommend at least giving 48 hours after the last post in a discussion before moving it to the archive. Peyna 03:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect statements

I was searching through some archives of the article "race" when I came across a statement you made here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race/Archive_18#Question_about_races_in_relation_to_breeds

"Races are most definitely not like breeds, though."

This isn't correct. The word breed specifically means a domesticated subspecies. The word race, biologically speaking literally means subspecies (its use to refer to human races is actually incorrect since human races are not considered distinct enough (have not diverged far enough) to be considered true subspecies, although the divergence exists.

Actually the entire discussion seemed to be your inability to pick up that the question initially simply asked what a breed was, which you poorly defined, and was mostly incorrect.

"Breeds are created by breeders. Genetic differences among humans is primarily the result of geographical distance, not the intentions or interference of a breeder. "

Incorrect again. Breeds are simply domesticated subspecies, they already existed in nature. It was just a matter of breeders to breed purebreds, or hybrids from those existing subspecies. They aren't necessarily created by humans, which would be impossible anyway except by genetic engineering which isn't how breeding works. Breeds, which are literally subspecies, are formed because of evolution, they simply are domesticated by humans later and are called breeds. Inforazer 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand what races, subspecies, and breeds are apparently. At this point I'm repeating myself, so I'm assuming you didn't actually read what I said. I'll make it simple for you, and then I recommend you look them up yourself. Before that, do NOT associate human races with the biological term "races", because they aren't the same.

Races LITERALLY are subspecies. That's what the term means biologically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29

Breeds LITERALLY are domesticated subspecies. That's what the term means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeds "A breed is a domesticated subspecies or infrasubspecies of an animal."

I found your behavior on that discussion more of a reflection of your ignorance, rather than trying to learn about these various categories. If you knew what these terms meant, the discussion would have been over in the first response simply by telling him that the word he was looking for was "subspecies", not "breed", and then explaining to him why human "races" aren't distinct enough from each other to be considered subspecies. Inforazer 13:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Then by all means, provide sources which back up your claims, which I'm baffled to understand what your stance is in the first place. Recent research by evolutionary scientsts won't change the semantics of words already established in our vocabulary. It sounds more like you don't want to admit you were wrong, but don't even know what you are arguing about. Make a point before you acuse people of ignorance. Inforazer 13:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. After looking at your profile I just realized that you are a jew creationist. It seems I'm not going to get anywhere in this debate. Goodbye ^_^ Inforazer 14:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Just dropping a line to say that I find you user page very interesting.Prometheus^-X303- 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Neapolitan Wikipedia

Hello, I would like you to notice that in this Wikipedia they use the term "crestiane" (that means Christians) to indicate the population of cities. Find a few examples below:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Seems to raise POV issues, but I do not partiocipate in Italian Wikipedia.

Hello, I'm not sure this issue has been raised here, but what this anonymous poster has neglected to mention is that we have for some time been converting "crestiane" to "abitante" (or "abetante" depending upon the variant of the language). The citations he makes do point out that there is still work to be done. The term "crestiane" is traditionally used to denote "people", as the word "sarracine" has been used to denote "arabs". Neither is entirely correct (not all people are christians, not all Arabs are Saracens) though they are "correct" in terms of their use in the language.-E. abu Filumena 06:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are Italians who use the wored "Christian" to refer to people in general. There was a comparable practice in the UK and US. Nevertheless, Jews and others found the practice objectionable. This is the key to our NPOV policy. You say that "crstiane" is "correct" in terms of lagnuage usage as it was "traditionally" used to refer to people. What you do not make clear is whether all Italians followed this usage unquestioningly, or whether some Italians expressed, directly or indirectly, passively or actively, some resistence to this usage. If the former, then we just have an interesting example of this history of a language. If the latter, then we have an NPOV violation. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really able to say how the Jewish population of Naples felt about the practice, I would agree that they may have (and arguably would still) find it objectionable. As I say though we are in the process of changing all the pages over to a less loaded term.-E. abu Filumena 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Asian Fetish

Mr. Rubenstein,

I don't see why on a topic such as this asian_fetish, only the views of Asian racists and anti-semites who are opposed to interracial marriages should prevail. Somehow all explanations that blame Europeans for dating discrepancies between Whites and Asians (like the "jewish" media etc) remain on Wikipedia, while any explanations that point to natural differences that are neither the fault of Europeans nor East Asians get erased, even though they are well sourced. Mr Phil 12:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

A proposal that NOR and V be combined, and RS ditched. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Josephus

I noted your concerns in respect of the attempt to strip "Josephus" of his Jewish identity by relegating his Hebrew name to a footnote and the use of the Christological date references.

I invite you to read my comments hereafter addressed to another user; and all of the contents of the "discussion" of Josephus.--Lance ^talk 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am really offended by the ex post facto "christianization" of this article. How can this possibly be justified? The article in question is a Jewish history article; and the arguments to remove Jewish references are so weak that an inference of bigotry is manifest. My recent interest in the article is that I had forgotten Josephus' Hebrew name; the current form of the article is not encyclopedic.--Lance ^talk 09:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• • As you can see, this is an old dispute. Let's sort it out at the article's talk page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I have carefully read, and re-read, the discussion page; and, I'm afraid that the only conclusion possible is that the users promulgating "AD" over CE, and relegating the Hebrew name to a footnote, are antisemites pure and simple. If necessary, I will demonstrate this; but I think any reasonable reading of the discussion fails to accept an alternative conclusion. It appears that you have made too many concessions in the past. Generosity is admirable, but not to the point of diminishing logic, well established historical conventions, and Jewish dignity. I am not sure what course of action to take. I have been registered in Wikipedia for just a few weeks.--Lance ^talk 12:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kinship terminology

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Kinship terminology. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TheRanger 12:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You noted in a post on my talk page that you posted your reason for the change to the article discussion page. I would point out that the change I made was after checking the discussion page however it was before you posted to it. When making a change that you refer to the duscussion page for a reason please post the note to the discussion page first. Thanks. TheRanger 12:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)