User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/7

Far out brussel sprout!
I forget where I saw this in a comment of yours, but it is the most amusing expression I have come across on Wikipedia in a very long time. Thanks for the humour. :-) --HappyCamper 12:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, actually thank you! That's at least twice now you've dropped something nice on me just when I needed it.  You bloody legend.  Although I like the first version better!  brenneman  {L} 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I will make a note to pop by more often :-) -- I had a little laugh myself afterwards too. Today, I realized that I didn't know how to spell brussels sprout! I'm still very skeptical of Wikipedia's entry though. Maybe we should bring this up to Featured Article status! --HappyCamper 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re : RfD
Yes, and I'd not be surprised if they do decide to get rid of my 1FA page altogether on MfD one day. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Filipino hip hop
Can you help me clean up the Filipino hip hop please?? also you need to archive your talk page it is over 120kb and takes forever to load. thanks!!!
 * Man you were not kidding. About the hip hop page I meant, but you were right about the archiving, too.  I have started on cleaning it up, but I think that they may get a bit of a shock, so I'll lay off now.  I'll come back in a day or two. -  brenneman  {L} 17:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Yikes, that was fast
Thanks. It was just a matter of refreshing my watchlist at the right moment, though. Before that I'd overlooked an entire Megatokyo-related AfD. You win some, you lose some. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What? I thought I'd had all those articles on my watchlist? What day was it inited, or do you have a link? I have to go make a rash intemperate comment there or lose what little is left of my inclusionist street cred! (I think I've speedied over 100 pages already)  + + Lar: t/c 14:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A little help
I need your help trying to resolve a dispute with Cyde. I believe he overreacted when he decided to protect my userpage. I did not have anything offensive or blatently obscene on it, merely a small list of admins (the usual suspects) who I felt were abusing their authority with respect to userboxes inside a subsection called 'wikipoop' (a term I made up as a joke). I do not think that is out of line since I can think of dozens of userpages which are much worse (deeceevoice, SPUI, etc). I do not directly call these people names or anything, just list some reasons why I think they have handled userbox deletion badly. I tried responding to Cyde's arguments on my talk page, but he hasn't replied since protecting my page. I just let it go for a few weeks, in an effort to be more productive in article space, but I can't ignore it any longer. I use my page to keep notes on various article works in progress as well as personal info, so I really need it unprotected. Could you please unprotect my page? Thank you in advance. --Dragon695 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to just unprotect it *poof* like that. I think I've only undone one adminstrator's actions like that ever. I'm more than willing to have a look at the circumstances surrounding the protection and what you've been up to since. I'm also willing to talk about it to Cyde. Note that (having not looked at anything yet) that may mean saying "Cyde, why didn't you issue a week-long block and steal his lunch money?" if you've in fact been unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Does that sound fair enough? brenneman  {L} 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to put an oar in here, but I went and looked at the page and the use of the term "wikipoop" is rather uncivil, and there may be other issues there as well (I just spotted the one, it was a quick look). I think it's ok to list off admins you have concerns with, but even on a user page you should remain civil... it's possible to say that you have an issue, and why, in a civil way, and one that doesn't leave the impression that you are fomenting unified action against them (votestacking), which tends to raise alarms. I've asked Cyde if he'd consider an unprotect if you would undertake to not do that sort of incivil stuff again. No idea what he will say. Is that helpful? Hope so!  + + Lar: t/c 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aaron, that sounds fair enough :). However, Lar has resolved the situation. Thanks for being willing to help, tho. BTW, I think there is a compromise for ending the userbox warring that's got overwhelming support. Please chime in here. --Dragon695 06:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I was rude
I think I was rude to refer to your "characteristic personal attacks" and to "nonsense" and "trolling". I apologise unreservedly for this.

Wikipedia really could do without further unproductive interactions, so I'll continue trying not to respond to your edits, which I find singularly provocative, and which you have admitted are based on assumption of bad faith. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Replacement of removed warnings
I'm a little confused about what's going on here. It looks like you're posting civility warnings to his talk page, but after he removed them you keep re-adding them. What's the point of this? If he removed the message, it's a pretty safe bet that he saw them. What do you seek to accomplish by making sure they stay on the page? --Ryan Delaney talk 03:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See also this apology. This edit warring over notices that I've already acknowledged strikes me as very hostile and unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway
 * Just as the second note says: Warnings aren't just for the person who is getting warned. Tony has had both a request for comment and an arbitration ruling regarding civility.  His initial request for adminship was nearly derailed based upon civility issues.  I myself am subject to frequent incivility from Tony in the form of "nonsense" and it's ilk.
 * It must be said that I have occasionally descended to this level in response. In future I intend to continue to remind Tony of his responsibility as an editor and an administrator to help maintain a respectful collegial atmosphere on Wikipedia.
 * I will continue to post neutrally-worded civility and/or personal attack warning to Tony's page as long as he continues to make them. I might hope that their continued presence there will serve not only as a reminder to him about civility, but to anyone else whom he's uncivil to that the bahavior is unnacceptable.
 * brenneman {L} 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know where you are coming from here, removing warnings just is not good, but seriously Brenny, you need to get someone else to do the warning for you. Some people (you and Tony) just shouldn't deliberately interact any more than is unavoidable. The "get someone else to do it" has two advantages. 1) it's not you so you don't get to wear the block, and 2) convincing someone else is a good exercise because if you can convince someone else, you're probably not overreacting. My door is always open.  + + Lar: t/c 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is excellent advice. I was, in fact, just about to request that someone else replace the warnings.  Forgive me if I would like to remain in place civility warnings first removed as"trolling", then responded to with an "apology" of the nature seen above, and finally removed again as "silliness". -  brenneman  {L} 04:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked Tito to have a look and said that I'd like them replaced, but I'd also be willing to hear other input regarding these warnings. - brenneman  {L} 04:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this is certainly interesting. While it is encouraged for users to leave vandalism warnings on their pages, most users would agree that Tony is not a vandal. Besides, the dispute between you two is well known by almost everyone in here, so it isn't anything particularily new... I don't know. Tony apologized, and using a template from WP:TT seems a bit unnecessary to me, so I'd say that they should stay off. That said, can't you two talk (or at least stay away from each other) for a change, instead of making me go for a bag of popcorn to watch the fireworks? (This goes for Tony as well.) Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above. Please, please, please, I beg you, Aaron, Tony, both of you, try to interact with each other as little as possible, and to go through other parties where you believe action is necessary, in order to get neutral people involved. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For future reference
Meh. When will I learn about asking Tito to chip in? ^_^ I will, however, defer to the wiser heads who have chipped in (and Lar, too) and approach Tony only indirectly as much as I can. That being said, surely there is a place for polite discussion of a perceived problem, and I'd like that discussion to continue here. Will someone tell me I'm wrong in feeling that Tony is an aggressive editor, is dismissive of criticism, and that tumult follows in his wake? That I'm wrong to feel that this is not good for Wikipedia? brenneman {L} 06:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The message for me to make with Tony like Paris does panties is getting through to me: Avoid at all costs.  I've actually been trying to do that for the last few months.
 * What I'm not hearing is anyone saying that Tony wasn't being rude or dismissive. As I browse his contributions, I find it littered with comments like the ones I highlighted on his talk.  Directed not just at me, but at a wide variety of other editors.
 * I also continue to be concerned about the manner in which he edits, particularly policy pages and guidelines. On WP:SIG for example one section he added was removed three times by three different editors before Tony called his cessation of re-adding it a "compromise."
 * I want resolution. I want an end to brinksmanship.  Tony's methods and attitude do not contribute to the collegial atmosphere we'd all like to enjoy, and I find it hard at times to sit idly by.


 * If you want someone to tell you that you're wrong, you'll have to look elsewhere. Hang in there. Al 06:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Amen, you got his MO nailed. --Dragon695 06:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you wrong? No. But (and this is a change in how I perceive how things ought to be from where I was 3 or 6 months ago, as I've grokked more of the wikiway) there is a need for aggressive editing, within reason, for it is how policy gets reshaped, how the parameters of what we do change, how the wiki grows. Too aggressive is not good but Bold-Revert-Discuss depends on aggressive editors being, well, aggressive (bold). That may not be quite the meaning of aggressive you mean, I realise. As for dismissive of criticism, that too has merit, up to a point... to be too sensitive of criticism is to not be willing to do the right thing (again, I think Tony, and you, and I, and others, may go too far in that dismissal sometimes). And as for tumult, that just seems to go with the first two. Tumult follows in your wake and my wake too after all... (cont'd)

So, all that said, is that a free pass for Tony, or for you, or for me? No. But it is something to think about. There is no denying that Tony does what he does because he thinks it is for the good of the encyclopedia. And if he's the very prow of the icebreaker in coursing a new path, if his actions seem rash and intemperate and ignoring all rules... that's not necessarily completely or even mostly bad. Someone has to be the lightning rod, and maybe it's a good thing this particular lightning rod is so strong and able to take so much heat. And you know he's almost always right about stuff too. Not always, but often enough that I've come to think that reflexively resisting or questioning is not a good strategy (not that you're reflexivly doing that... but you know me, I paint in black and white for the sake of analogy when the world is actually gray)... All that said, could he be more civil? Does he have a blind spot and tend to view your actions with undue scrutiny? Sure. I didn't say he was perfect. And I'll keep pointing out where I think he went too far, of course.  + + Lar: t/c 14:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish I could help you to understand Tony better, but I can't make that claim myself. I also can't claim to understand you that well (which is why I've not weighed in on your auto-RFC yet).  But to your question above, I have to tell you my gut feeling is that somehow, somewhere you and Tony have a fundamental misunderstanding about each other.  I don't mean, "when he said this, I thought he meant that", I mean I think the way you see and comprehend Tony's words and actions is different from how he (and others) see himself.


 * I couldn't pin point it for you, other than what I've said before - you two have some basic philisophical differences about what Wikipedia is and how it works. You say he's an agressive editor, and I'm not sure if you mean aggressive-bold or aggressive-angry.  You say he's dismissive of criticism, I don't get the impression he rejects it out-of-hand, I just don't think he's interested in discussing it too deeply.  You say tumult follows in his wake, and I see tumult follow quite a few people, yourself included.


 * The real question you really need to decide is, is it good for Wikipedia? That's what keeps drawing you into these conflicts.  If you really feel Tony is bad for Wikipedia, draw up the evidence and take it to RFAr.  These small scale skirmishes aren't accomplishing anything.  If you're going to evaluate him as an editor and an admin, I don't think civil is enough.  We could have all the nice people in the world, that doesn't guarantee a good encyclopedia.  If you feel he's disruptive (and there have been times I think he has), is it for the good of the encyclopedia or does it hurt the encyclopedia?


 * At this time, and I've only really been around since the big webcomics case, I haven't seen Tony do anything disruptive to Wikipedia's long term future. There's plenty of short-term stuff, but that's part and parcel of wielding the mop & bucket.  I hope I haven't rambled too much or lost my own point.  --InkSplotch 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lar, I couldn't disagree more. Modifying policy without discussion or consensus is very bad. Doing so as a means to justify your bad behaviour is worse. Sorry, Aaron has Tony nailed. --Dragon695 06:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The myth of force
When I look back over the recent past, and the large and small-scale changes the have come down the pipe, three stand out to me. Two I was close to (mediumish ones) and one I had nothing to do with (a huge one.) These are 1) VfU -> DRv  2)  WP:COMIC -> WP:WEB and 3) PROD.

In every case, it was a combination of a lot of groundwork, wide ranging discussion, bold (but not agressive) editing, and patience and flexibility in the aftermath. Steve Block, Radiant!, Encephelon, these are all editors who have worked to lead policy. They've grabbed on with both hands and rode.

Without being rude. brenneman {L} 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Recall
I've added myself to the category, and left talk page comments supporting my own stricter standard (one WPian substantively claiming admin abuse.) "Captain Beefheart"? :) What's your tipple of choice over on the other side of the world?  Must be good stuff! :D  In praise of your leadership, Xoloz 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. 126K talk page, just so you know. Archive time?
 * Gak. I keep putting it off because I still haven't closed out all the old business on my last archive and don't want to be two behind.  but, like that carbunkle on my knee, ignoring it won't make it go away, will it? -  brenneman  {L} 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we're going in the same direction here, or perhaps not, but I created this idea for a community-based desysopping process (yes, I know, a perennially rejected proposal and all that, but this is just an idea, I'm not publicizing yet, that I think would satisfy both the people calling for a process, and those who are currently afraid it's unworkable). I'd appreciate input. Dmcdevit·t 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your new category
It sucks. I wish you would put your energy to use creating content instead of metaplaying around and trying to destroy it. Grace Note 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I had decided myself in the last few days that I'm spending to much time "metaplaying" and resolved to do more article-space work.  For the record, would you consider the change from this to this a start on improving content, even though I did remove some things? -  brenneman  {L} 11:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re : Some wrestling Diva or something
66% surely isn't a consensus, not even close to my usual minimum of 70%. I would have appreciated that the editor actually contacted me first, and I guess I wouldn't be re-opening this AfD anytime soon. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why, oh Fate, am I the only Wikipedian who notices wrestling on television? Truth be told, Brenneman, I think this thing is notable enough, given the number of commercials I see for it.  I'm not about to mount a vigorous defense, nor am I going to go buy the thing so as to offer a summary of its assuredly witless contents -- but my sentiment does favor a keep, if that makes any difference to you as you read the DRV. Xoloz 15:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, it's worth noting that the time I re-opened one of mine it went from "very weak delete" to "clear keep." For myself, although I consider my closes carefully I'm not at all precious about them, and if someone suggets to me that stretching it out for more than five days will allow a clearer consensus to develop, I like that.  I hate repeated nominations of things that don't have a crisp outcome.  They tend to get nastier every time, focussing less and less on the actual article... I'm starting to jazz here, so bear with me.
 * There shouldn't be a quorum on AfD. Relisting shouldn't be just because something got a low turnout, the instructions encourage people to pass things that the outcome already looks clear on.
 * But I think relisting (and re-opening!) for stuff that's fuzzy isn't something to be scared of, either. Better a debate to run for ten (or fifteen!) days and come to a clear consensus than to run three inconcusive and bitter XfDs.
 * Truth be told, I haven't even looked at the article, only the AfD and the DRv. So please, let any notion that I wanted this re-opened because I wanted it deleted be banished.  I was simply looking for a clearer outcome.
 * brenneman {L} 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we list AfDs by day, so waiting ten or fifteen for a clearer consensus won't help much -- nobody goes browsing in old logs looking to vote after five days elapse. I suppose article readers would vote, maybe -- but if they looked for the thing, their choice is likely to be keep, which is the default result of no consensus anyway. I don't have a problem with unclear debates, because that means we keep the article (unless the closing admin thinks its trash and deletes it anyway, in which case it probably comes to DRV, where it gets more eyes.) As you might have noticed, when we get genuinely controversial cases, I do favor relisting -- I agree that if an article generates lots of discussion at DRV, it should be thrown back to the wider AfD audience, since there are obviously many interesting things to say about it.
 * One thing I do almost hate is re-opening, though. Trying to pick up a discussion where it left off ten days ago is hard in speaking and really hard in writing; plus, as things develop, a closer might well have to discount the first discussion anyway, because it was made in ignorance of a later compromise or improvement. I think relisting, rather than reopening, does a better job of accounting for change, the truest constant in the universe. Xoloz 15:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I give some benefit of the doubt, which means "when in doubt don't delete". If the article really is that unworthy, the practice is that it'll eventually get nominated for deletion again after a while. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note to self
Antichrist is a mess. Serious external link infestation. Convert to Cite, purge the noise. - brenneman  {L} 15:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

sig length
Hi Aaron. I read your comments at WP:signature, and just wanted to say that I also have never had a problem with signature length, and I don't understand why it's an issue at all. I guess I just needed to express my bewilderment to someone. So that's just a bit of support for you. See ya on the flip side. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 17:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Status
Thanks for your support! --M e rovingian { T C @ } 23:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser
If User A has edited from 128.0.0.2, 128.0.0.5, 128.0.0.7 and 128.0.0.3, and User B, with similar interests and abuses edits from 128.0.0.4, autoblocking would be overly agressive, but it's an obvious sockpuppet, much like I am! Clarifier 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I would have thought switching ISPs to one like AOL would be the obvious next step.  Assuming you didn't want to go the whole hog and recruit zombies, I mean. -  brenneman  {L} 12:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Astral projection links
why did you remove the entire references section from the Astral projection article Facto 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll respond on the article talk page. - brenneman  {L} 05:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review
No, I apologize for making such accusations...it's just frustrating that the article was ever conceived of being written in the first place. Adam Bishop 15:54, 26 May 2006 to 2007 (UTC)

Re:ANI clutter
Thanks for your support. I really wasn't that worried about it...I'd much rather have people say about my posts, "This isn't ANI worthy" than other alternatives such as "Why in the world did you do this block?" :o) I'll still post on the stuff that I feel is potentially worthy, and as my experience level goes up, I'm sure the severity of what I consider potentially worthy will likely go up as well. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"In popular culture" sections
I see you removed the "cultural references" section of the Psychokinesis article. These sections, often entitled "In popular culture," have been out of control of late and have become dumping grounds for inclusion of unreferenced items and displays of personal knowledge of anime, etc. But, was this just an act of boldness on your part, or is there an emerging consensus that these sections ought to go?

I ask this because, well, see Statue of Liberty for example... I don't have the guts to pull the trigger on this one myself, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * *CHOP!* I hate these sections, they are great examples of "too easy" ways to feel like you're adding to an article while just adding static. I brutally cull them whenever I see them, and then usually go back a week later, see what the article's immunse system has done in response, and add as prose anything really relevent. -  brenneman  {L} 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification archive.org
Archive.org is not a commercial website. Please see creativecommons.org Archive.org is how you publish your cc'ed work to the net... The external link I put was not a commercial link but academic research I found recently Towsonu2003 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk. - brenneman  {L} 03:54, 28 May 2006 to 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Thank you, I will go expand on the vote, it just seems incredibly cruel to make a game off the requirements to survive on the streets. That and it looks dodgy. Thank you for the warm fuzzy vibes, they are warm and fuzzy.


 * Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/19

I suck at couplets, especially on Sundays. I would fall back on my new favourite insult, "I would say you were great, but I'm in the pedia." Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 10:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

NO Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA, because you didn't make any, ya weenie!
The pain! My secret shame writ large, and in garish colours even! *sob* brenneman  {L} 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They're not garish, they're bright happy shiny LEGO colours... PS did you catch the adverts? Hopefully that might get a few more people to think about the admin category...  + + Lar: t/c 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Kate Moss
Thank you for major overhaul of the Kate Moss entry. However I am surprised that you deleted the Trivia section, since I saw these on many other entries for persons. --Pmkpmk 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What ought to be done with a "trivia" section is that citations should be found for anything that's acutally useful and it should get folded in as prose into the article.  Little facts just floating around are easy to add, but really don't do much for the over-all quality of the article.  I'm putting it on my "to-do" list to find more sources for this article as well. -  brenneman  {L} 17:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

INA
G'day Aaron,

you're right ... that was a big call. For what it's worth, I agree with what you've done. The debate was irreparably tainted by the refactoring work very early on, and I think a clean slate is necessary. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good call. Probably should be deleted, probably won't be, but that was not the way to be discussing it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * by the way, you might be interested in User:Col. Hauler's userid history; previously, he was User:Lesbian and bi girls are awesome, and before that, User:Jack Hates Jesus. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Filipino hip hop
Your assessment is accurate. The sudden interest in this esoteric musical subject would be most welcome, under other, more constructive (rather than destructive) circumstances. You are not the first editor to express an apparent antipathy for certain aspects of this culture, particularly as regards the notability of its practitioners. Such controversies have gotten rather heated in the past, a fact which does perplex me to no small extent. What is boils down to is that it seems so pointless to so massively delete others' content, which was arrived at over months, if not years of very painstaking research and editing by editors knowledgeable about the subject. I do not do so to others' content unless it is wrong information. Thanks and best, Badagnani 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oy. Maybe list it for peer review? It does seem to have a large number of pics, but there is also a large amount of text to go with them. I have to wonder about the copyright status of a lot of those pics, though. Especially the collage at the top. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Brilliant, but useless
Hi Aaron, *sigh* doesn't quite encapsulate the frustration that many are feeling. Apart from the obvious expletives, the four words that spring to mind are: bang, head, brick, and wall. Unfortunately, neither side shows signs of becoming bored and going away - we will be "celebrating" the 1st anniversary of the userbox wars come New Year 2007 I fear. Who knows when this will end? Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, it's always good to know there are voices of reason out there. And let me know when you have a draft policy in place to implement the *boing button*, I will be one of the first in line to support it. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A policy, yes just about any policy, would be better than the war. Unfortunatley, to satisfy the wonks any sane policy will need arithmetic support of 70%. That's not going to happen see WP:UPP. I'm begining to think what we need is another way. Binding community arbitration. A cross-party appeal to Arbcom or Jimbo (or to a special panel appointed by Jimbo) to settle the issue once and for all. --Doc ask?  00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm
Happy to be an intermediary if it helps. But it probably wont and the boxes aren't worth it anyway. --Doc ask?  23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying stupid things

 * Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/20

That's all. :) -Will Beback 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You relentless smartarse! That's bloody golden, and deserves keeping.  I may convert it into a haiku and stick it into my trophy case.  Thanks for the laugh, and I'll take your point! -  brenneman  {L} 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)