User talk:Will Pittenger/Archive 3

My Pages

(CST)

Time: 11:53

Date: Sunday, November 24, 2024

My User Page

My talk page

My Contributions

User boxes created by me

Templates I created for my use

Send me an e-mail

My Homepage

Archives

Main Talk Page
Please do not edit here. Add new stuff to my normal talk page

Archive Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you. I came to post this [1]Dakshaaayani 08:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Will. Thanks for the intro to Wikipedia. Acid0057 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism accusation

Hello, My bot was accused of vandalism, because it removed an interwiki-link to a non-existing page on the Indonesian wikipedia. The link is therefore, obviously, erroneous, so should be removed, either by a bot or a human. Please reply at nl:Overleg gebruiker:Thijs!. Thijs! 10:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot status

At the time I started using the bot a bot status was not necessary on this wikipedia. Apparently, as I look it up now, a bot status IS necessary, but I did not notice the change in the policy. I will request a bot flag soon. Thanks! Thijs! 10:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

Please don't don't tell me that my article is nonesense, I agree that it is very silly and I don't mind If you delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bailey Cooke (talk • contribs)

Sorry

yeah sorry about that i will login next time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.10.130 (talk • contribs)

Ronnie Maszk page

What makes the page on Ronnie Maszk non-usable. I would really like to know because I worked on it for quite awhile. Please don't delete it until you let me know so I may fix it immediately, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie_davis (talk • contribs)

ArenaBowl XXI

Hello,

I am attempting to understand why you have questioned the notability of the ArenaBowl XXI article. Having read the criteria for notability, I am unsure what part of the guidelines the page does not fulfill. Please let me know what you think the page requires to become "notable" and I will address your concerns. Thank you. Dhmachine31 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not gone. ArenaBowl XXI is your link. Dhmachine31 08:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the championship game of a fairly popular national professional sports league, isn't that notable enough? I would say the millions of fans that attend AFL games each year have deemed it "notable" more than adequately. However, as governed by Wikipedia's notability standards, I believe the addition of ABC to the page as the televising network (the new AFL television contract was still under negotiation at the time you tagged the page and thus no network was listed) satisfies the criterion for notability as "published works". But in any case, it appears the tag has been removed by another user. Unless you object, I think we can consider that a resolution to our discussion. Dhmachine31 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British, American, and universal English usage

Good morning Will. I still think my edit to Denver International Airport changing "pavement" to "paved area" was justified. However, the edit comment that I provided was somewhat substandard. My intent was NOT to change an American usage to a British one; it was to change an American usage to one which would be universal among English speakers.

I am an American, but according to John Cletheroe, who is a Brit who writes travel advice for people visiting the United States and Canada, the British usage of "pavement" is equivalent to our American word "sidewalk", i.e. it only applies to paved pedestrian paths.

(Cletheroe goes on to say that in America the word "pavement" refers to the roadway instead of the sidewalk, which of course is not correct -- in America, "pavement" refers to any and all areas that are paved, regardless of their use -- but Cletheroe is an Englishman and can therefore be excused if he doesn't exactly understand the American usage. I am relying on him for the British usage.)

When I referred to the "paved area", I was attempting to refer, briefly, to runways, taxiways, and automobile roadways (and I guess sidewalks also -- why not) in an unambiguous fashion.

May I reinstate this edit?

Paul 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Please require users to read WP:BLP

Thank you for recommending that template however I must differ with you in the cases of the Bill O'Reilly vandals. The very first one was obvious vandalism in my opinion if you take a look at the diff. The second one was still in my opinion blatant vandalism but I guess you could argue it to be in within the lines of the template you provided. I rarily revert information which is not indisputable vandalism (with the exceptions of RC patrol mistakes), I do however appreciate you signifying a template that might come in handy though. Regards,¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:welcome

welcome links should now appear on history pages too. GeorgeMoney (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome (and offer of help!)

Hi Will! I signed on to Wikipedia in order to add something to a paragraph on "language games" for the benefit of the 4th graders that I work with. In attempting this, I've realized that even with Wikipedia instructions, I am having trouble figuring out how it works. Are you available to walk someone like me through the process? Thanks for getting back to me when you are able. Alphadalpha 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block warning

Hello Will, I very much appreciate your effort to keep Wikipedia free from libellous content. OTOH I don't think, that someone who states, that Islams "tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad'" could feel offened by stating that he/she "expressed sentiments opposed to the religion of Islam". I tried myself to remove defamatory and libellous content (such as the cartoons) from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article until I've been banned from editing this article. It seems, that even though WP is not a democracy, defamatory and libellous content is welcome as long as a majority supports its inclusion. Raphael1 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need references? Well, apart from the quote above, which is a primary source, CAIR states, that "Coulter has made a number of similarly anti-Muslim comments since the 9/11 terrorist attacks." [2], the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee accuse her of "promoting hatred and discrimination" [3], the Muslim Civil Rights Center considers her remarks islamophobic [4] and the International Herald Tribune states, that she has repeatedly ridiculed Islam and Muslims. [5] Raphael1 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re

Now i could be wrong, but warnings are for /warning/ a user to make sure they dont do something wrong again. This guy seems to be ignoring warnings and vandalize on purpose. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

If you're going to post lectures on how to use edit summaries on every user talk page where they didn't put an edit summary, you're going to be one busy bee. Wahkeenah 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I add edit summaries when necessary and appropriate. Wahkeenah 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am now making a more conscious effort to put something in the edit summary. One thing I do not intend to do, as some do, is to use an entire sentence to state that I fixed an apostrophe. :) Wahkeenah 09:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While having not received that lecture myself, I have read it on someone else's talk page and find its tone demeaning. Saying something like "Please use an edit summary so that we can understand the motivation behind an edit. In particular, I did not understand the motivation behind [LINK TO PAGE]." would be much better and would avoid the lecturing tone. Thoughts? VivekVish 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bug in Template:Tlurow

About the message you left for Omnicronpersei8: Unfortunately, he left Wikipedia last month so is not likely to respond to you. But I looked into your question and left you a reply. -- Gogo Dodo 06:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for your adviceBelbo Casaubon 10:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates

When tagging pages for cleanup/wikify, just use "Month Year". The day is not needed. --- RockMFR 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Life Stories

I have removed the "features" blurb as it was unencyclopedic, and was obviously ripped off from the official The Sims 2 website as it promotes the features of the software rather than describing them. Therefore I removed it. Sillygostly 08:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will

Will rules all Wikipedians. God bless you. 71.62.10.130 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't rule anyone. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your pasted templates

Will, I'm sorry, but you're pasting a subst template in a way that looks very much like spam. Look at your contributions, then look at mine, and note that 80% of my edits have summaries. Following this, please stop bothering me. ericg ✈ 06:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, please consider involving yourself in something which does not consist of me leaving messages and you leaving templates. Your templates are quite clearly spam based on the vast quantities you're spreading around and the fact that they don't, for the most part, apply to many of the users you're suggesting should use summaries. If you would like to discuss this, and can find time between pasting sessions, please respond on my talk page without re-applying the templates. Thank you. ericg ✈ 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ericg

Please leave Ericg alone. Your edits to his talk page are misguided and harassing. Users are more than free to remove comments from their talk pages if they wish. The slight exception to that rule - that is, for warnings - only applies to actual warnings made for the information of other administrators. Since not using edit summaries is not a punishable offence on Wikipedia, there can be no 'warning' for it, and your stubborn reinsertion of such a notice onto his talk page constitutes more disruption than anything. Please stop. - Mark 06:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an attack

Dont keep deletingmy comments. That's bad. All did was ask a question —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.190.187 (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not me, don't tell me what to do please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.190.187 (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not going to anser me are you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.190.187 (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nah I wont sign. STOP DELETING MY COMMENTS! 74.140.190.187 08:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC) changed my mind 74.140.190.187[reply]

FYI, this user has been temporarily blocked... s/he has been posting vandalism to their own talk page and attributing it to you in the hopes of getting you in trouble at WP:ANI. Luckily such shenanigans are easily seen through. Sorry for the trouble s/he has caused you. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal and Edit Summaries

I have removed the comment about looking like a Vandal from my talk page. I feel that the comment was inapproriate as well as redundant speaking that I was also kindly reminded of this by another editor. I do forget to do the edit summaries but everybody could tell that my edits are not vandalism and Wikipedia does have history of every page. As per what the Admin who wrote on your page the last time said, please do not re post the commment, it will just be deleted again and will be considered vandalism. Have a nice day Mystify85JEC 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. He's done left the message on my talk page twice. There is no rule requiring ANYONE to fill in the edit summary. I do fill them in sometimes, when I want to.--Kross ^Talk 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, you really need to re-think your method, as it's counter-productive and borders on spam, especially when left for editors with large edit counts (most of which have edit summaries) or with existing talk threads on the topic - although you may not see it as such. Your own edit summary of "don't look like a vandal" is provocative at best and inflammatory at worst, and isn't likely to encourage cooperation. If you want to continue your summary crusade, then it might not hurt to rephrase both your templates and edit summaries in such a way that they aren't worded as administrator warnings, which they are not. ericg ✈ 18:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I never thought it was mandatory to fill in the summary field; I do usually tend to fill it in, but there are times where I feel my edits speak for themselves enough so that I don't really need to fill in a summary about it... I'll keep it in mind, but don't expect me to be flawless in this regard. H Hog 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments regarding edit summaries and archiving my talk page

Will, thanks for the comments left on my talk page. I'll try to fill in my edit summaries more often than I have been. About archiving my talk page, I don't see a point. Wikipedia has a history of what was there, and old conversations that hadn't been posted to in a year or more probably weren't going to be resurrected. Talk pages, especially user talk pages, are about communicating with other Wikipedians. They are a method of communications, not a historical record of all communications that have happened on Wikipedia. I find that having a clean user talk page is better for actually communicating, which is why I cleared my own talk page a few days ago. Once again, thank you for your comments. Grant 07:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Not confused

Maybe, but it must have been a genuine mistake. I have been a regular Wikipedia contributor for a year, so obviously I know to sign my comments.UberCryxic 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always leave summaries. Sometimes it is a complete waste of time for a minute change. Thanks for the tip though.UberCryxic 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never had a problem of that sort with any bot.UberCryxic 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right

I, Zazzer, will now use the edit summary box from now on. Thank you for reminding me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazzer (talk • contribs)

Check before you leap

Thanks for a welcome over 2 years since I first contributed. Not sure from other comments you made to others that absence of an Edit Summary in a User talk contributions is a good predict of a serious vandal. Got a source or reference for me. Seems from the above postings you get a lot of attention on this issue. Oh well off to do my own patrolling and occasional lapses in good wiki style ChaseKiwi 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone

Will,

I forgot to sign ONE talk page. Its not like I am habitual at it. Please leave me alone, your constant little reminders, are nothing more the sheer harassment. If it continues I will report it. Mystify85JEC 05:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (This message is sarcastic)

Hey dude, thanks for telling me I look like a vandal. I really appreciate being compared to those people. I've always envied them, you know? They way they sneak around the bowels of the Internet, seeking out items to destroy. They live the life, eh?

On a serious note, I don't use edit summaries, as they are unimportant. All they do is save people one click, and I'd rather view the history and observe what changes a user made anyway. VitaleBaby 07:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem?

Why did you leave that edit summary message on my talk page? What is wrong with just looking at the edit summaries to see what a user's previous edit was? By the way, what did I do to make you leave that message on my talk page? (Iuio 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why don't you ask someone with a fast computer to patrol for you? (Iuio 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You seem to have plenty of complaints about your behaviour. (Iuio 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Edit summaries

Check my contrib list and the proportion of times that I leave an edit summary. You can go over all 75,000 edits if you like, but the last few pages should be sufficient to see that - for major edits - it is in the high 90s percent.

So who's the vandal here? The person editing appropriately, adding edit summaries except for routine minor edits, or the one who arrogantly adds unnecessary edit summary messages on usertalk pages without checking edit histories? Given the number of complaints about your behaviour, I should point you straight to WP:CIVIL, and also point out that non-civil behaviour of this sort may lead to a block from editing - as explained at WP:BLOCK: A user may be blocked when ... their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Consider this a gentle warning: persistent over-the-top messages on people's talk pages may result in a temporary block from editing. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a page, not sure where, that you made 5 edits. None had edit summaries. I saw no evidence you used summaries at all. I had to load the diffs for each to ensure you weren't a vandal. That took time. Without the edit summaries, I assume the worse. With them, I tend to skip edits.

Why did you have to load the diffs for each separately? As to which page it was, I don't know either - I've checked back through my last 1000 mainspace edits and cannot find anything which matches that. And, as I said, looking through the non-minor edits, there are very few with no edit summaries at all. As for assuming the worst, you can usually assume that admins are not likely to be vandals, so remembering the names of a few of them may help!

I should also note that Help:Edit summary is a guideline.

Indeed it is. Guideline, not policy. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell admins apart from non-admins by the user name? I didn't know that.

No, you can't - but you can do what I suggested and remember the name of a few - a couple of quick scans of that list and you should at least have some idea of a few of the more trusted editors on WP. They're listed at WP:LA. Most of them also have their status on their user pages. Which is always a good place to look before adding a warning on a user talk page. Sarcasm also doesn't sit well with WP:CIVIL, BTW. Oh, and please let me know if you ever find that page I did five major edits on with no edit summaries. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:toolbox buttons

You would add the following to your monobook:

if(location.href.indexOf('action=edit') != -1&&wgPageName == 'User_talk:Will_Pittenger') {
	addOnloadHook(function() {
		var image = document.createElement("img");
		image.width = 23;
		image.height = 22;
		image.src = "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Button_verse.png";
		image.border = 0;
		image.alt = 'archive';
		image.title = 'archive';
		image.style.cursor = "pointer";
		image.onclick = function() { location.href = 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivemanage'; }
		document.getElementById('toolbar').appendChild(image);
		return true;
	});
}

GeorgeMoney (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I see. You would use this code then:

if(wgPageName == 'User_talk:Will_Pittenger') {
	addOnloadHook(function() {
		var nav = document.getElementById('p-navigation').getElementsByTagName('ul')[0];
		addlilink(nav, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivemanage", "archive", 'p-archive');
	});
}

GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are my e-mail addresses tough for parsers to read?

(Response from your post on my talk page)

I think what you have is fine. I think there are few robots out there that even care to interpret more than just the easy ones, since there are so many email addresses out there hat aren't disguised in any way. Eventually enough email addresses will be disguised that (with more processing power) it will be worthwhile to try to figure out the straightforward ones. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Summarize posts" message

Thank you for your reminder to summarize my edits. It is possible that I forget to provide a summary when I make very trivial orthographic or aesthetic changes, but you can be certain that I am very aware of the helpfulness of summarizing and need no reminders on what the "edit summary" input box looks like.

Of course I'm more than happy to personally assume good faith in the tone of the reminder, but since it seems to me that some users might consider the "spell-it-out" tone of the warning to be insulting, I might humbly submit that if you happen to know that a user is not new to Wikipedia, that you use a slightly less canned message. By no means would I saddle you with any sort of obligation or expectation, but it might help defuse some possible bad feelings on your talk page.

All that aside, cheers, and thanks for your conscientiousness in patrolling possible vandalism. Alekjds ^TALK 09:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

While I usually like form mails, I have to take a minor issue with yours. The issue with summaries is communication of the work you are doing at a particular point. Its not always necessary, particularly in cases like today where I was mostly working on templates I had started myself. I usually leave a summary. But again, the essence of the suggestion is communication - something your form letter seemed to lack in terms of actual specifics about what I should have been commenting on. While vandal fighting is necessary, its not the point of summaries, and there are plenty of cases where a summary just isn't needed IMHO. Good luck, and if I may, Id like to suggest using WP:POPs to preview edits from the RC or wherever. Its quite the timesaver. -Ste|vertigo 09:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Don't look like a vandal

Duly noted, when I look at my edit history, I admit it kind of looks suspicious. --72.138.222.109 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re

I could possibly make some userboxes, maybe i will when i have time.
I have seen dropdowm menus occasionally, and even experimented with them a while. I could implement a whole system...

GeorgeMoney (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Will, I am User:71.126.194.105; I made one revision on an article but I forgot to sign in as myself. Thanks anyway! Dkostic 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message from RVDDP2501

I would like to apologize for any trouble I have caused you and wikipedia, I will try and remember to add an edit summary to all future edits, I honestly just keep forgetting to do the edit summaries and for that, once more, I would like to say sorry, thank you for bringing this to my attention - RVDDP2501 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so as long as I remember to include edit summaries in my edits, everything should be fine, right? (forgive me, I'm a little dyslexic and i try to avoid stepping on other people's toes) - RVDDP2501 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks and I will try to conform to the rules of wikipedia - RVDDP2501 02:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedies

In theory, I agree with you. Right now, there are over 200 items on the speedy delete page, and if I try to stop and compute which ones have been up for "a few hours", it'll take even longer to clear the backlog than it is already taking. Plus, the article plainly asserted that the subject was an elementary school student -- there was no way the author was going to be able to make it notable. Thanks, NawlinWiki 04:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries

I usually do that if I'm in a hurry or under stress, but point well taken I haven't been warned of vandalism in all my time here so no need to worry, Cheers! --Dark Dragon Flame 05:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit summaries

The article in question (Yevhen Kushnaryov) was written by me, and if you check you'll see that I provided the requested references. Thank you. Cossack 06:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Will

I am a user you have recently sent a message to concerning not leaving comments when i edited, this is something that i am trying to improve as i make edits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 (talk • contribs)

Vandals

Yeah, well, I'm not. Tough. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your bot, or anyone else's, reverts my perfectly decent edits, I will personally campaign for the blocking of the bot. I don't feel the urge to make a comment on every edit that I place on a talk page, and I have no intention of starting now. In fact, when I got MDAC to FA status, I hardly added any edit comments at all. As I say, tough luck. Or would you prefer I didn't write FA content? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this was way too harsh, and I apologise. This is one reason I'd never ask to be on the ArbCom - I am far too firey, and I tend to shoot my mouth off. However, the reason I got het up was the heading: "Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals". This implies that I look like a vandal, yet the record shows otherwise: I have contributed to more than a number of featured articles, I am an admin, and I have done things that have decreased vandalism, like start up WP:AN. Overall, it looked like you were saying that I'm a vandal, and from here I didn't really read much further. I guess that's my problem, however I wonder how many others have also gotten a might tetchy from your talk page messages? I understand where you are coming from, and yes, edit summaries are important. However, I hardly use them as they tend to slow me down, and pretty much every vandal fighter knows that I'm not a vandal. So, apologies for being horrible to you, but hopefully you can take this as constructive criticism and modify the heading as well as target newer editors, or ones without a reasonable reputation in future. After all, I'm hardly likely to try to destroy Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

What I liked about your comment was that it presented the problem and a solution. I have my reasons for not using + - I don't like the heading layout - I generally use "edit this page". So I would have preferred that it said "one way of avoiding this is to use the "+" tab", i.e. was less prescriptive. Rich Farmbrough, 12:21 22 January 2007 (GMT).

Incidentally, you may want to think about how your various messages will be recieved by different people. If you are planning to leave it at experienced editors pages, it should avoid coming across as patronising. Perhaps the phrase "As you may know" might be useful in there somewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 12:31 22 January 2007 (GMT).

those neat little boxes on your user page

Hi Will, how can I make or get the tags for some of those boxes on your user page?

Thanks Tintina 17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Fair point, will try harder. Belovedfreak 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You annoy me.

Honestly, you've insulted me much more than User:Saikano. "Shut up" is not a personal attack and I did not insult him. It is a impassive expression meant to show my disinterest in his juvenile behavior. Read your own links and be more careful about accusing people of personal attacks next time. --SeizureDog 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst

Whoops. Sorry about that. Sometimes when I go into "quick edit mode" I forget. Thanks for the reminder! P.S: Rich is right above, but I know you meant well.Just H 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]