User talk:Auntieruth55/Archive 1

Welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

German Unification article
Hi Jmabel, I'm in a quandary about the German unification article. It needed a lot of work, and I read your comments on its discussion page. I've done a bit of "tweeking" I guess you could call it...it's vastly longer, and more elaborate. I'm confused about what else to do, however, how to get it "approved," etc., and then what? as an experienced wikipedia person, can you help me? It is on my user page....Auntieruth55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm a bit confused. You seem to have posted the rewrite to your own user page, which doesn't really make it at all easy to see what you've changed, since the "diff" tools are all for "diffs" on a page.


 * There is really no formality to the approval process. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress. Edit the article directly. I assure you, people will come in and look at your edits. The history will be there for anyone to look at (that is, it's easy for them to see what you've changed and act accordingly). Just make sure your edit summary draws attention to what you've done. If you particularly think your work needs review, you might drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany, someone will certainly follow up. But do put your version in the actual article, not somewhere else. If someone thinks it's dead wrong, believe me, they won't hesitate to revert you. - Jmabel | Talk 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. I'll plug it in and see what happens. I used myown user page because Ididn't know what else to do. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

has now fixed the template for the WP:GER assessment; so the article should now show class=B. You might want to request assessment at WikiProject Military history/Assessment.--Boson (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What now (reply)
I'm no expert on the GA/FA process; perhaps Jmabel or Casliber can give better advice. I would tend to let the peer review run for a while. I think nomination for GA or FA normally terminates peer review. Personally, I would tend to skip GA and go straight for FA. I haven't yet found time to have a closer look at the article again, but I would mention a few things:
 * Lede: The lede should arouse interest, provide context and (in Wikipedia) also summarize the article, ideeally being able to be used as a stand-alone version (there was some talk of print versions including only the lede). I would normally expect a slightly longer lede for this article, probably four paragraphs.
 * In the lede it is stated that unification "occurred" on a specific date, while the article describes the process of unification (rather than an event). That sentence might be better rewritten (I know it's been there for a long time).
 * Notes and references: For FA, the article could probably have a few more citations: in particular the lede should probably contain citations even when the facts are explained (and citations provided) later. Because of the nature of Wikipedia, I would expect more citations than in normal academic work (where more can be assumed as common knowledge and the author has some sort of accreditation). Some people might like different formatting of citations/references.
 * Additional material: If possible, I would like to see more images (e.g. maps).
 * Sub-articles: Strictly speaking Main should be used for sub-articles (i.e. text that belongs to the article but is placed somewhere else for reasons of space and structure). In some cases See also might be better. In real life, of course, it's not that clear-cut.--Boson (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

not knowing what to do and how to do it...
I've revised some of the article German Unification and posted my revisions, per the suggestion of another user. I had asked for peer review, but apparently that will happen regardless. My students use this site, so I had checked on it to see what they were quoting/misquoting (often misquoting). Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do be careful about asking for review while you are still in the midst of editing! I'm trying to go through and fix things, but it is clear you are still in there working on it. It's hard for two people to edit an article at once (sometimes works but it's much tougher than working one after the other). Let me know when you are genuinely done in there. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Genuinely done, for tonight at least. I'll take a look at what you've done in the morning! Now I'm going to work on the dissertation. Thanks for all your help! 01:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up
I went through and did a pretty comprehensive copyedit. I can tell that you know the material better than I, so while I've alerted the relevant WikiProject and someone should eventually review from that angle, I pretty much stayed out of anything substantive.

Do please see a couple of questions I asked at the bottom of Talk:Unification of Germany. Thanks for all your work on this. - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany


Welcome,, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template WikiProject Germany. A few features that you might find helpful:
 * The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
 * Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to [ watchlist it].
 * We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Agathoclea (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Military history!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

German templates
Hi, I saw your post on the WikiProject Germany talk page. Quite a lot of templates do work on English Wiki and there is at least one clever dual language one. But if it doesn't what I usually do is find the English Wiki equivalent and put in a redirect from the German template name. Then change the field names with data in them to their English template equivalent (see Selbitz River). But you can go further. I copied a complex German template for locomotives (Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug and Prussian P 8) into English Wiki and only changed the displayed field name. So in effect it translates it automatically. You can even get it to recognise and translate data if they are predictable (see Template:Bahnhof and Hof Hauptbahnhof). But I'm no expert and it's taken a degree of trial and error! Gruß, Paul. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for the advice. I'll give it a try! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

German Civil war
I'm here and not Unification of Germany because I'm only asking for my own curiosity: does civil war have a different meaning in German than in English or is this particular war considered a civil war because wars between similar peoples even though under different governments counts as civil wars? The War of 1812 between US and Great Britain not a civil war but the American Revolution could be considered one. It's late, I hope this makes sense to you. Nitpyck (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was called The Brothers' War (Brüderkrieg) rather than civil war, because quite literally it was seen as a war between brothers. German-ness was considered a cultural unity, rather than a political one, or at least had been for many generations (hence, Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation ...), and "Germans" were children of the same Father(land).  If it were quite literally a "civil" war it would be "bürgerlichkrieg" -- or something like that (I always get confused on endings of adjectives when they are combined into compound words), but that is the direct translation of "civil war" from English into German, not the actually meaning of the idea.  If you get my meaning...?  What we call a "civil war" here (such as the Revolution, or the CW 1861-1865) is a "Brüderkrieg"...  I would have to check, but I think in Prussian textbooks and history books, it was "the war with Austria" and in other states, "Brüderkrieg"....--Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. So often the fine details are blurred in translation. Nitpyck (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Max Payne
I appreciate your comments about the article and I'm working on fixing them right now. I wanted to ask you if you thought I should even include the last bit about after the credits. I don't think it really helps the plot and the Nicole character was in the film for about a minute before that point. Also the theme has a revenge part about it because he wants to get revenge on his family's killer. You want that in the lead? --Peppage tlk 00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * just a bit in the lead about it being a revenge film, I think. Something like, it is a classic revenge story...just to let us know what it is about, and what Max's motivation is. Re Nicole: It seems to me, then, that the Nicole part is a red herring....do we actually know who she is? Has she played a part in the movie until then?  does she even have a function?  If not, leave her out, I'd say.  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I hear you, thanks for helping me. I made the changes so if you wanted to take a quick look that would be great.  I'm planning to try for GA. --Peppage tlk  18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * much better. I understood it better. I cleaned up a sentence or two.  It does drop off at the end, however.  You might put in a sentence on the fate of Max Payne....:)  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Former Coutries!
Welcome,, to the Former countries WikiProject! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on a formerly existing country, state, or territory, please tag their talk page with our project template WPFC. Here are a few features that you might find helpful: And here are some tasks you can do:
 * The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
 * Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to [ watchlist it].
 * If you wish to use the template Infobox Former Country, please read the instructions before you get started.
 * Within the project there are also several subprojects. Here are some that you may be interested in:
 * Empires: Holy Roman Empire, Austria-Hungary
 * Historical subdivisions: Austria and Hungary, Former subdivisions of still existing countries
 * Other examples: Italian historical states, Chinese historical states, Largely unrecognized and special territories

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Laurinavicius (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

French Army in World War I
I have the page watched.  my name  inc Ottoman project  00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ostend Manifesto
Wasn't sure if you were watching Peer review/Ostend Manifesto/archive1 since the other reviewer stated he wouldn't be, so I figured I'd leave you a note here. Thanks for your insightful comments. I had completely reorganised it and wasn't sure where I was going with the dilemma section, but I think I'll move the Black Warrior into it (retitled "Pierce administration") and move some of the stuff about the preceding administrations up to the context section. I have it at User:Recognizance/Sandbox and intend to incorporate the PR suggestions while I'm performing the surgery; feel free to edit it like a normal article.

The part I'm concerned about is the Caribbean "angle" because I don't think I've come across anything directly mentioning that so far. (I did come across a humorously titled book called Manifest manhood and the antebellum American empire though.) Do you think having the opinions of the Cuban populace would be enough? There's plenty of discussion of that. Recognizance (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ruth. Would you mind giving the article a second look? It's changed significantly since the peer review. I'll probably expand the third paragraph in the creation section, but I'm more or less happy with it. Thanks! Recognizance (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos edits
Hi Auntieruth55! Could you comment on these two edit issues? bamse (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Occupied France 1872.png
Thanks for uploading File:Occupied France 1872.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

List of football clubs in the German national championship
Could you please leave a short describtion of what needs to be clarified in regards to the three points in the article you added the template to on the articles talk page? It would make it easier for me to address the issues. Thanks, EA210269 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * see my comments on the edits' page...--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see that one. I have a look as to what I can do. Thanks, EA210269 (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the intro was shit, didn't realise it was that bad. Have a look and let me know whether its any better now. I tried to provide as many English references as I could but some stuff can only be found in German sources. Let me know if you think, anything else needs fixing, I will give it a go. EA210269 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * that is perhaps a bit harsh, but it is much much better. I cleaned it up some more, and fixed your "shocking" spelling. I didn't realize you weren't a native speaker, although living in Australia explains your extreme fluency.  I added some links, etc.  I would suggest one more thing, well, one plus some consequences.  I suggest you use the alphabetical listing template (I don't know what it is called, or where it is, instead of dividing your article by 24 sections/subsections.  It will make it much more self-evident, what you've done.  Then add "sections" to your text:  foundation of the German national championship, Revival during Interwar years, Institution of the Bundesliga


 * If you don't have a link to the Bundesliga, you need one. I don't remember. Also, there should be a section on "legacy" -- what did the league accomplish in terms of facilitating inter-state competition?  Why did the Bundesliga supercede it?  What were its drawbacks that made the Bundesliga necessary?  Something like that.  Let me know, and I'll re-assess.  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Usually, I put my edits through spell check on Word before finally releasing it, but it got a bit late last night. There is a German football champions article, which I now linked above to make people more aware of it. The main article provides a much more indept analysis of the subject, this article I wrote is really only meant as a list with an intro to tell people what they are actually looking at and over what period of time the German championship stretched. The Fussball-Bundesliga link is there, I made shure of that. Well, thanks for your help, EA210269 (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing
I see that you recently listed your name at the Guild of Copy Editors. I was wondering if you would be interested in copyediting Oklahoma City bombing. I have been working on this article for several years, and have already had several people look at it. I believe it would benefit from another set of eyes before heading off to FAC. The article is long, and if you only want to review a portion, that would still be helpful. If you're busy, no worries, there's a long list of other editors to choose from. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * sure, see my comments on the discussion page. Very nicely done article. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review the article, I appreciate it. I reviewed each of your edits, and it's always a smack against the forehead for not catching most of those mistakes earlier. I'll work to address the issues you raised on the talk page later today. Again, thank you, and I'll let you know when I finish addressing the issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the issues you raised. If possible, could you please review my changes, and elaborate on the points I had questions on? Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * okay, I went through and left comments on the talk page. good luck with this. Let me know if you need something else!  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the statements as you suggested and added a few sources. I really would like to see this on the main page at the 15th anniversary, so I'll be nominating it at FAC soon to get a head start (if it doesn't pass on the first attempt). Again, thank you for your contributions to improving the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you. It's a very good article, imho, so I hope you make it.  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletiion tag on Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA1
I have removed the speedy deletion tag that User:Christopher Kraus mistakenly placed on the GA review page and left a note on his talk page I have also fixed the transclusion to the article talk page and removed the article from the backlog list at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Check my progress at your convenience at Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (Pre-1911)
Huge article with lots of information, would like it to go on GA sometime. Can you help copyedit it? thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I've got a lot of other stuff going on, so will have to decline.  Perhaps one of the others...?  Let me know if you don't find someone, though.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: template help and mentoring
Guten Morgen! Wie geht's? Ich habe Ihre Mitteilung gelesen. Wenn man willst, einen Kandidat zu entfernen, muss man nur die Seite wie normal bearbeiten (zum Beispiel hier), aber TonyTheTiger hat es schon gemacht. Alles klar? - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 09:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

GAN
Hi Auntieruth55, thank you for all your work at the Good Article wikiproject. Please remember, though, to use edit summaries when you edit the GAN page (for promoting/failing an article, starting a review, etc.). Thank you, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

X Title
Okay, give me a bit and I'll get to work on the probelms. I wrote that article two months ago and since have been able to expand my knowledge of the layout of championships.-- Will C  00:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have rewrote alot of the article and cut-down some if not all of the redundancy. If you have anymore problems, please just state them and I will take care of them with the utmost quickness. I've also added a few more sources and done some other stuff. I hope the article is more to your liking now. Also, thank you for the review so much!! Wrestling articles get reviews rarely.-- Will C  03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have anymore probelms at the moment that I need to take care of or just the OR problem? Also I see you are still a bit new, I've been here since January of last year. If you need help on anything just say hey. Also I open the problems with the X Title don't effect you future decisions to review wrestling articles. There isn't alot of people who review them and they usually end up being the oldest ones. we need as many reviewers as we can get. So thanks again for the review, and I'm very sorry for the state the championship was in.-- Will C  15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for passing the article. I'm sorry about all the problems. My first championship article expanded and I'm use to just PPVs. Hopefully this does not stop you from reviewing other wrestling articles in the future.-- Will C  01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks & Unification
Just wanted to say thanks for your second opinion on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - it was very helpful, though I'm not sure we've convinced the nominator. Ricardiana (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Germany --

Unification
Hi, I will be able to give the article a look over, but it will probably be a couple of days before I find the time. At first glace, I think that although the article is very long it is of the length required for a topic of this complexity and importance. I also feel that while there are a lot of sections this is not necessarily a problem, although I wouldn't add any more as this could cause confusion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The commentator appears very smart, but he's also young, which influences attention span, etc.  Ricardiana is also prepared to review the article, so whichever of you gets to it first is fine with me.  thanks for your help!  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was pleased see that this has passed GA without requiring my input. Let me know when it goes to FAC and I'll happily participate. Regards. Can I ask, what is the situation of Battle of Pulo Aura? It says on the talk page that it has passed but it isn't yet on the GA page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I had already put it on the GA page, but apparently not. Anyway, it's done now. :) I've not done a FA article yet, so don't know the process.  Do you think it's ready?  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't far off. Take it to peer review and ask some good copyeditors to look it over to iron out any prose issues before you try for FAC - I'll see if I can give it an in depth look as well at some point this month.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Furst Bismarck (1).jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Furst Bismarck (1).jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unification of Germany
Hi, Auntieruth55 -- I thought you'd like to know that I passed the article as a GA. Congratulations on your hard work - sorry the process was a bit of a pain. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * no problem, thanks for your advice, too, on how to improve.  I'll research the FA process later, after I give this time to "settle."  :)  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Germania-monument.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Germania-monument.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Orphaned 140th Pennsylvania Infantry
I was reading this article about the 140th and discovered it was "orphaned" -- although it has a lot of links, not many pages link to it. In looking at the article on Chancellorsville, it seemed that this is one place to add a link -- and then, I was looking for the order of battle, and didn't find it. Will you be adding one? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't done an OOB article since my two for Gettysburg in 2004. Other folks have been adding them over the years based on my original format. See Gettysburg Union order of battle for instance. You are welcome to add corresponding ones for Chancellorsville. (You might even edit the existing GB files and modify them for CV; the Union OOB was quite similar.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have an order of battle for CW stuff--my time period is Napoleonic. I was just working on this orphaned article, and trying to figure out how to link back to it from a couple of other sites.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)