User:Silence/Archive0006



Welcome to my chalk page.

User box "its"
Please stop changing my user box. I designed it as I wanted it. If you would like to make an alternative version, please feel free to do so. Graham 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have forked it for you: . Graham 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in an alternate version (the "for you" and "If you would like to make an alternate version" implies that I'm merely acting based on my own tastes for a userbox, rather than attempting to make the best possible userbox for general use), just in providing a good version to people who want one. But a fork is an acceptable compromise, so, looks good to me! However, you should certainly review WP:OWN and remember that no template is banned from being edited by other users (and only a few are Protected just to deal with vandalism); if you wanted to make a template that you had a final say over, you should have put it in your Userspace (e.g. User:GRAHAMUK/Its), not in the Template space. Just a note for future reference; glad you solved the "it's/its"-versions problem so nicely. -Silence 01:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I wasn't aware that I could put templates in my user space, though now you mention it there's no reason why not. Perhaps that is a better solution. Graham 12:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, I like your solution too; it never hurts to give people more userbox options. But yeah, you can put a template anywhere and it will work; you can see an example of a userpage template on the top of this talk page, and I could even, for example, type and the system would read it as a template and paste the entire article's contents into this page. The "Template:" preceding most template names is there for organizational, not programming, reasons. -Silence 14:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dogs
I can see that you don't think we need two categories for dogs in the family, however, let it be respectfully stated here, that you eliminated the wrong category. Dogs are not owned by their family. They own them. Therefore, the category was very much not a joke, but rather the truth. --Mmounties 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ... Uh, what? I'm confused. I've never heard of this before; it almost sounds like some sort of dog cult, is there a Wikipedia article or website I could go to for this view? I apologize for my ignorance, but numerous userboxes use the "This user is owned by X" joke, and I assumed you were just going with that. Either way, it doesn't make sense to me to arbitrarily subdivide users who own (or are "owned by") a certain species of animal, when the ultimate purpose of Category:Wikipedians by pet is to indicate what species of animals users might be interested in or knowledgeable regarding (for example, "category: cat owners" can function as an informal, disorganized "WikiProject:Cats" list, of sorts). Whether or not they think of themselves as "owning" or as "being owned by" their pets should not, at least, be divided on a species-by-species basis, else we'll end up with two categories for every single animal in existence, serving only to create unnecessary complications and forking of user categories! Instead, if you could explain your view more clearly to me, we could make something like "Category:Wikipedians owned by their pets" or similar; using such a category along with a unified system of pets would allow us to convey all the same information as an "owned by dog"/"owned by goldfish"/"owned by hamster" etc. system, but in a vastly simplified and centralized format. What do you think? And, is the reason you don't wish to be added to "Wikipedians who own dogs" because you consider this offensive or inaccurate due to your personal views? If so, could you recommend any possible wordings that would allow you (and others who share your views) to categorize yourself with other people who have dogs, etc.? For example, would "Wikipedians with pet dogs" work (since "with" could be interpreted either way, and would have the added benefit of not requiring "ownership", which is less important than association and companionship in this case)? -Silence 01:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Category:Wikipedians who own cats and compare it to Category:Wikipedians who own dogs. The pages speak for themselves.  Dog owners do not own their dogs.  Wikipedians with dogs would be fine and I could subscribe to that.  But saying I own my dogs would be roughly tantamount to saying I own My child or my mother.  As I said, take a look at the two pages, take into consideration that cats and dogs happen upon roughly the same number of families/households and come to your own conclusion.  --Mmounties 23:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, the reason the cats category is bigger than the dogs one is because the cat userboxes (which put users in those categories automatically) have been around much longer than the dog ones, and more cat userboxes use usercategories than dog userboxes (partly because I haven't gotten around to doing all the dog breeds yet, since there are many more breed-specific dog userboxes than breed-specific cat ones, making accurate usercategorization trickier). Additionally, there are numerous "This user is owned by cats" userboxes on Userboxes/Pets, even more than ones for people "owned by" their dogs; the reason the category is nevertheless populated, and there is no Category:Wikipedians owned by their cats or anything like that, is because I took the two ("owned by" and "owned") to mean essentially the same thing and added the same category to both types of userboxes. I did the same for the dog 'boxes, but you changed that when you manually made an "owned by" category for them, upsetting the symmetry between dog and cat userboxes. Pretty simple explanation, ne? But I don't see any pressing reason not to change "who own" to "with", and since that satisfies your terminological problems, I'll rename those usercategories as soon as I have the time. Also, thanks for taking the time to explain the issue to me. Though you'll need a bit more evidence to convince me that people with dogs are owned by their dogs, while people with cats own them. :) If anything, I've seen more well-trained and obedient dogs than well-trained and obedient cats, so... -Silence 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you're not a dog person. If you knew your way around dogs you'd also know that the issue is not whether they can be trained but rather whether they care about their people.  Dogs forge a relationship with their people as no other pet can.  They truly love their human families and  will die for them if need be.  Dogs don't lie and will never betray you.  Cats tolerate their people and, I dare say, most other pets don't really care one way or another so long as they don't go hungry.  Hope that clears things up for you a little...  and thanks already for renaming that category.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px]] 16:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia
Simply: well said. brenneman (t) (c) 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've come here to say the same thing. Thank you for your excellent advocacy of this WikiProject. Thryduulf 09:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tritto. +sj + 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob, and thanks for the kind words! I've been finding the amount of opinion-censorship in some areas of Wikipedia lately a bit disturbing (i.e. "we find that opinion/self-description offensive, ergo it is uncivil, ergo you can't say it!"), but when that sort of attitude crosses over from censoring userpages to censoring WikiProjects, it's really gone way over the line and is actually directly harming Wikipedia's article content. So, someone had to say it. Whether the WikiProject is deleted or not, though, I expect that a lot of good can still come out of this! The idea of making a broader Paraphilia WikiProject is the most appealing alternative I've seen, and would resolve just about all of the delete-voters' complaints. Either way, though, the main hope is that we didn't scare away and valuable editors with this silly controversy. -Silence 12:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Silence, what they said. The project was saved, will probably be renamed to Paraphilia, and hopefully will go on in its small way to contribute to the 'pedia. A lot due to your fine defence, more compelling that I could make, thanks. Herostratus 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

help yourself
User:Mike McGregor (Can)/code page
 * you know which one you want... BTW, if you know how to link to a category to group like-minded users together, please modify...Mike McGregor (Can) 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To make a user template, input the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:user_x - with X replaced by the name of the template. If the template is for personal use (like the one at the top of this Talk page), instead go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike McGregor/X and do the same. To use that template, put its name in double brackets, like user x or user:Mike McGregor/X. To make a user category, input the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:X with X replaced by the Category, and categorize that category somewhere within Category:Wikipedians. Also, I recommend that you be wary about making any userboxes that look quite like the ones you currently have on that page, as they are hostile and aggressive enough that they are likely to be deleted, or at least to cause some unnecessary controversy. Remember that the purpose of userboxes and user categories is to self-identify, not to promote any cause or ideology; you can say "This user supports userboxes" in a userbox, but you shouldn't say "USERBOXES ARE AWESOME PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE THEM ARE DELIONIST FASCISTS"; that wouldn't be polite. If you keep the userboxes in your userspace, though (rather than general-usage ones in the templatespace), they should be safe. But, that's up to you. -Silence 04:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC / MarkSweep

 * Please stop by Requests_for_comment/MarkSweep regarding user's recent actions. Thank you! Sct72 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the userbox fix! Y0u | Y0ur talk page 06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project
You voted for Aeronautics, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian politicians
I saw that you modified the categorization of the category "Wikipedians who have run for public office" (hmm, it doesn't linkify properly, so I won't), of which I am the more junior of two members, and followed the link to your user and talk pages.

At first, before I figured out that you were joking about the Congress thing, I wondered why you didn't add yourself to the category.

Further along, as I read the many chapters of your talk pages, I was very impressed with your calm, reasonable, self-deprecating and good-humored responses to the many attacks on you.

In terms of vicious backbiting, the political wars of my home county have nothing on Wikipedia's internal battles, it seems. If my modest and tentative edits ever provoke such a backlash as you have received, I hope I will be able to respond with as much equanimity as you have managed.

Best wishes! Kestenbaum 07:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. You just brightened up my day. And your comment made you seem more likable and good-humored than any politician I've ever seen! :) I'm afraid I can't agree with you that all of the attacks were unprovoked, though; I still have a long way to go with my own ability to remain level-headed in some rough situations. But thank you for the vote of confidence!
 * As for the category, I moved it chiefly because the miscellania-category Category:Wikipedians by stuff was in the process of being depracated, and Category:Wikipedians who have run for public office was one of the few remaining subcategories, so I put it under Category:Wikipedians by profession at least for now, even though "running for public office" may not technically qualify as a "profession" (then again, "pirate" probably doesn't either). If you have any preferences or better ideas for a way to categorize it, it can easily be moved. Also, to link to a category (rather than putting a page within that category), just add a : right after the initial, as in [[:Category:Wikipedians who have run for public office.
 * Anyway, I like you, and I like that your comment is the sort of one that makes people like me wish to be a better person and do a better job in future edits; if you ever could use any assistance in an article you're working on (such as with copyediting, etc.), feel free to give me a call! -Silence 16:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't and don't mind the reclassifying of the category. Though I too am a little dubious about running for office as a "profession", I'm surely not the one to argue, since an elected post is now my day job.  Thanks for the tip on how to link to a category, as well as the "nowiki" tag I hadn't known about before.  I'm still new here. Kestenbaum 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User Freedom template
Hi - Could you or someone else re-protect Template:User_freedom ? I have had to revert 2 Tfd attempts by User:MarkSweep, who by the way deleted it during a debate on Jan.22.


 * I am not an admin, and cannot protect pages. -Silence 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. Sct72 01:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello sweet caress
I am back! I was travelling for a couple of months and didn't have much time each day to spend with computers (just enough to check email). I guess I have missed some good fun. I am sure you have managed to argue against common stupidity well without my help. BTW, I just went to check your December talk page and saw a late reply to a comment I left there before travelling. I have nothing to reply to what you wrote -in other words, I agree with all you wrote. So now, which are the latest interesting and controversial topics being hotly discussed/edited? Cheers. -- Anagnorisis 11:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
thanks for the changes u made on my user page. :) xx XYaAsehShalomX 20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar
Hi Silence. There was considerable discussion on the talk page about the multiple Ravi Shankars. The consensus was to have the article for the musician to be Ravi Shankar (musician). Please move Ravi Shankar back to Ravi Shankar (musician). --BostonMA 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I participated in that discussion. It doesn't make it any better of an idea; it's still a terrible one. Figuring that I didn't know as much about the subject as most of the people discussing it, I stayed out of it and let things run their course, but if the thing is still going to be absurdly messed up and mishandled three weeks after the fact, clearly someone's got to do something about it. With only two existing articles relevant, one vastly more commonly (and more likely to be) searched for, and an incredibly easy way to link from each article to the other without even needing a tangled mess of redirect and disambig pages at all!, the simplest solution in this case is also the best one. If your main concern is that it will be too difficult to tell which Ravi Shankar pages linking to Ravi Shankar are linking to, that problem is hardly solved by having it go to a disambig page! (disambig pages are for searches, not for links; ideally no disambiguation page should be linked to by any article on Wikipedia), so either way we'll need to specify where the link goes. I'll manually change all the links to Ravi Shankar (musician) back to Ravi Shankar, and check up on the other links to Ravi Shankar to see if they're properly attributed, myself, if that's what it takes to get the pages correctly and efficiently named. Making our readers jump through bureaucratic hoops to find the article they're looking for is not the way to go; in this case, a simple link at the top of each page solves every conceivable problem without any unfortunate and troublesome parenthetical clauses getting involved in the titles. -Silence 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Silence, thanks for discussing this. Could you explain what you mean by absurdly messed up and mishandled?  Also, I don't understand what you are saying about the disambiguation page.  Ravi Shankar did not go to a disambig page, it was a redirect to Ravi Shankar (musician).  I don't see how users were inconvenienced by this.  On the other hand, it is a great help when one goes through a disambiguation effort.  Naive links will almost all be to Ravi Shankar.  To fix them, I only need to look at the "what links here" on the REDIRECT page, and I see all the Naive links.  I don't know if you have ever undertaken a disambiguation effort.  Please don't take this the wrong way, but such an experience might give you a little more sympathy for my position.  Sincerely, BostonMA 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion
Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on DRV
We obviously disagree on userboxes (so what). But can I thank you for your civil tone and calming words in today's debate. FWIW, I have desisted in deletions, and urged others (who ironically went further) to do the same - at least for now. The time may be right to look for a compromise of some type that puts all this to an end. --Doc ask?  01:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely; the best way, at least for now, is to let things cool down a bit before proceding with further deletion, even if it eventually becomes necessary to eliminate all userboxes. There's just too much hostility, more admin action would be adding fuel to the fire. I can understand why both sides have done most of the things they've done (including your actions in deleting userboxes which I feel are perfectly fine but you feel aren't acceptable, a simple disagreement over T1's scope), which makes it much more tragic that there's so much ill-will over a simple difference of opinion regarding such a trivial userpage game. What Wikipedia needs first is a firm, consistent, comprehensive policy for userboxes and any future memes of a similar nature; once that's out of the way, the tiresome, endless policy-arguing can be moved to its proper venue, and the TfD and DR process can be reserved for actually reviewing deletions and templates, not arguing over fundamental aspects of Wikipedia policy. Arr. Anyway, I'm still hopeful that a peaceful resolution can be found to this; Jimbo's terror over the growing number of userboxes in recent weeks is rather inexplicable, as it will be easy to cull them all or do whatever else is necessary after a Userbox policy is in place, regardless of how many there are. Calm discussion is needed here, not hasty, aggressive, us-against-them (Jimbo's "cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun"; how ridiculous) action. We'll get through this silly little conflict before long, and someday, we'll all look back at this and laugh. :3 -Silence 03:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually, although I think we'd be better off without POV userboxes, and that the templates have to go, on reflection I think T1 is an unmitigated disaster. Not because it is vauge, which it is (all the deletions were valid interpretations of it), but because it is using CSD to do something CSD was never designed for. Speedy deletion ought to be for things that would always perish in xFD debates, but T1 was designed to get rid of certain userboxes when TfD (and now DRV) will never delete any useboxes. That's because the motivated activists on both sides are not being particularly reasonable (OMG it's a userbox delete/keep!). What we need is a policy, either imposed by Jimbo, or better thrashed out by some miracle of consensus. Speedy deletions can then enforce policy and not create it. (Actually, what we were trying to do by deletions was create a defacto policy in the absence of any real one.) Perhaps the row will focus minds on all sides now. Actually, I noticed an attempt on Pathoschild's page (he has been quietly recreating userboxes as subst: on userpages, subverting the effects of our deletions, without actually reversing them). It might interest you: User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy. Anyway, as I said, it is time for jaw-jaw and not war-war (although I remain ready to defend my position if anyone forces the point). --Doc ask?  16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

deletion review for atheism/evolution userboxes
I'm not sure what is the proper format to add to that page. if I could enlist your help, I'd greatly appreciate it. Cornell Rockey 14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rfc
Silence,

Within the next 24 hours, I will submit an Rfc against the admins who continuously speedy userboxes without consensus, and whatever else. If there's anything you think should be included on there, please let me know. -- D -Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

History of art now COTW
Thanks to your support, this article is now the collaboration of the week. Feel free to help in any way possible during this week. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-19 20:20

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia in Spanish. Thank you for giving us a hand! --Equi 21:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, you guys are crazy-awesome at welcoming new users. You even tracked me down to here?! You guys totally have the German and French Wikipedias dominated in welcomes, they didn't even notice me. :3 Makes me wish I knew any Spanish. Pozo del oh. -Silence 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

thx
I had something nice to say about you at A nice cup of tea and a sit down: "Silence has poured oil on troubled waters recently with patience, wisdom, and erudition, in two recent but unrelated high-stress areas. Many thanks." Herostratus 16:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are a delightful man. I'm deeply honored, though slightly curious about which unrelated areas you speak of (based on your recent contributions, I'm assuming the deletion-review WikiProject Pedophilia vote and the deletion-review Userbox Debates for now, though I don't know how much of an effect I had on either). Also you have great style and attitude, love the userpage. Also that is a wonderful and heartwarming page, I will have to try it out sometime. Such a lovely surprise. -Silence 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links
Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm that kind. I'm kind of an asshole, if you hadn't heard. It's tempting, though; this is a great way to fix up a lot of articles, and you're obviously highly skilled in the matter, and meeting some unfair opposition just because you don't have the bureaucratic go-ahead of being an official "bot". I'd be more tempted to vote "support" if you focused entirely or almost entirely on more recent dates, though, and less so on older ones. I realize that this in itself could cultivate a temporal bias, which isn't good, but purely from a practical standpoint, there are infinitely more articles that link to 2004 than to 356 BC, so the former is much more important to focus on than the latter, and it may even turn out that the latter's OK someday in the future, because it's so much less subject to abuse and so much more likely to provide valuable and relevant information than a modern year-link (simple by virtue of their being less significant information from thousands of years ago than from 10 years ago!). Additionally, it's better to be more than less conservative on a matter like this, since we can always fix the dating overlinkage later if necessary, but it will be much harder to re-link those dates if we ever decide to change the policy. I appreciate the hard work you're doing, though! :O I think I'll rethink the matter over a bit before I vote. That or take a nap. Hmmm. -Silence 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History of art NPOV and unreferenced
Hi, I see you have placed unreferenced and npov templates on the article, but there's nothing in talk about it. It would be useful if you could state the unreferenced material and the aspects which you consider POV. Thanks. Tyrenius 07:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All of your additions are unreferenced, and most of the text from before your additions was unreferenced as well. There are two "further reading" links, but with such a general, major topic, it's hard to tell what pieces of the article are and aren't from which reference. Statements I found POVed (if you dispute the POV bias, which at best requires sourcing and at worst outright removal, of any of these statements, feel free to say so and I'll explain why I interpreted them as POVed) included:
 * Analysis has also grown into the "political" use of art, rather than the more naive and superficial appreciation of it simply as a wonderful creation of beauty.
 * There is always an intent and a philosophy behind art, and an effect achieved by it.
 * The reasons for art's creation and the number of its uses it are as many as the types of art that exist.
 * Most of the great traditions in art have a foundation in the art of one of the six great ancient civilizations: Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, India, or China.
 * In Byzantine and Gothic art, the dominance of the church insisted on the expression of biblical and not material truths.
 * There was no need to depict the reality of the material world
 * The physical and rational certainties of the clockwork universe depicted by the eighteenth-century Enlightenment were shattered not only by new discoveries of relativity by Einstein and of unseen psychology by Freud, but also by unprecedented technological development accelerated by the implosion of civilisation in two world wars.
 * The history of twentieth century art is a narrative of endless possibilities and the search for new standards, each being torn down in succession by the next.
 * Modernism, the idealistic search for truth, gave way in the latter half of the twentieth century to a realisation of its unattainability.
 * Relativity was accepted as an unavoidable truth
 * Furthermore the separation of cultures is increasingly blurred and it is now more appropriate to think in terms of a global culture, rather than regional cultures.
 * Religious Islamic art forbids iconography, and focuses on the holy word of God found in the Quran.


 * Additionally, your additions, though very very useful and overall a great step up for this article (which was nearly devoid of actual historic information beforehand), seem to rely overmuch on random examples. Examples, although appropriate in some situations, are generally a weak way to sell a point because they rely on the assumption that the specific example(s) chosen are the rule, rather than the exception. Examples of examples include:
 * in medieval times for example as workmanship by anonymous tradesmen.
 * During the early Victorian period, the quattrocento artists were considered inferior to those of the High Renaissance - a notion challenged by the Pre-Raphaelite movement.
 * (such as Picasso's derivation from African sculpture)
 * Thus theoretically Aboriginal art would not be better or worse
 * than Michelangelo, just different
 * from the megaliths of Western Europe
 * to the paintings of the Tang dynasty in China.
 * the considerable employment by the orthodox church in the Middle Ages
 * Soviet propaganda
 * the maintaining of social structure through eighteenth-century portraiture
 * an anarcho-religious vision exemplified by Van Gogh
 * (i.e. Zeus' thunderbolt).


 * (As you can see, most of the problem with overuse of examples is from the early part of the page, whereas most of the problem with POVed statements is from the later part of the page.) Using some examples is fine, but they should be referenced where possible (to avoid WP:NOR) and not overused, especially since which examples we use can also be considered very POVed (for example, most of your examples refer specifically to western art). Using as many examples as you did, in particular, really bogs down the writing quality and coherence to the readers we're aiming for: most readers won't understand a lot of the things you're referencing (especially when they aren't wikilinked, but even when they are), making the examples useless to the very people who most need them (i.e., laypeople, not art historians!). Your revision is a great place to start from, though. -Silence 09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dis Pater
Could you explain this edit to Dis Pater, perchance? -Silence 08:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think something went wrong with the popups, since it appeared to me that the leading paragraph was also removed (I have a screenshot as proof). I have no problem with the removal of the band redlink.  Finally, you might want to make more liberal use of the "edit summary";  I see you've been around on WP for a while now. dewet|&trade; 08:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was just making a routine removal of a band that had recently been speedy-deleted for non-noteworthiness (I made the exact same edit to Dis at the exact same time without any trouble). If it's a technical error that made you see more being deleted than actually was, your revert is understandable; sorry for the confusion. Using edit summaries all the time can be tough when you're rapidly editing dozens of pages at the same time (it can make the work take twice as long in many cases, in fact!), but I understand the importance; thanks for the tip. Good luck to you in your future vandalism-reverting! -Silence 08:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)