User talk:Bookandcoffee/Archive 2006 Oct - Dec



'''ARCHIVE - please do not leave comments here, as I may well miss them. If needed, copy the relevant text from here to my User talk:Bookandcoffee page and continue the conversation there. Thanks. '''--Bookandcoffee 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Trade unions of Trinidad and Tobago
I think this is a new page that you have created. What is this for? - Dave Smith 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Trade Unions in Gibraltar
I am due to create about three stubs for unions in Gibraltar. Actually, they merged with the TGWU and are part of that work that I am doing in trying to estabish an accurate list of unions that have merged with the T&G opver the years. But there does not seem to be a category for TU's in Gibraltar. I know it is a British territory - so does that make it part of the UK TU category? - Dave Smith 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

General Federation of Trade Unions (UK)
It might be useful to have a category for the GFTU so that affiliated unions could be quickly and easily identified. How to go about suggesting this? - Dave Smith 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there’s been some similar work on the and, where we’ve started to split things out into the national unions. It’s been a bit hit and miss because there is a tendency of the articles getting moved back into the “of country” category when people don’t realize that the category is actually a sub-cat of the country. That being said, I think it’s a good idea, although I’d say you’d want to create the  at the same time. As for suggesting it – if it was me I’d just go ahead and do it. People will notice, and if there is any objection they’ll say (or change it back) and you’ll find yourself with a discussion about it then. :)


 * Gibraltar – I don’t know enough about the politics to have a worthwhile opinion. I see there is a, so maybe there should be a as well. If not, you’d certainly be safe in just leaving them in the UK cat for now. They can always be moved later.--Bookandcoffee 16:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

General Federation of Trade Unions (UK)
This is still marked as a stub. If you get a chance to look at it following the re-writed I would be interested to see what you make of it. - Dave Smith 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a look at your GFTU re-write, it looks good. I like the history section, and nice work on filling out the member unions. I do have a comment about the Current role section. I would be tempted to reduce or combine a couple of the sub-sections. A lot of it seems like fairly standard stuff for unions in general, (research, pension) and only really differs for the GFTU in actual figures. If these are each in separate sections, does than mean there is more unique info to be added to each one? (but I haven't had my coffee yet this morning, so take my comments with a grain of salt. :) --Bookandcoffee 19:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

subjectivity
The previous intro, "Child labor or labour is the use of children for their labor, with little compensation or consideration for their personal development, safety, education, health, and future prospects" is subjective in that we can not objectively define 'consideration'. Who's consideration are we considering? the employer? parent? child? two out of three? How do we evaluate consideration of personal development? How do we know if future prospects have been adequately considered? by whom?

Even on the most quantifiable issue of 'compensation' how much compensation when compared to other low skilled workers in a given country? Do they need to make more than their parents?

The only objective thing that we can say is that child labor is when children are doing something that somebody values enough to pay for.

The issue of APPROPRIATE work is amazingly imperialistic (and paternalistic) in that WE decide THEY should be doing. Independent of what they want, we push for laws inhibiting their involvement in the legal labor market, and then we are shocked(!!) when then end up in prostitution, drug trade, and illegal sweatshops. The Gomm 03:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, looks okay. ...and not that subjectivity is intrinically bad.  a QUOTED cited subjective statement is objective in that there is no opinion that that is what was said.  a CITED non-quoted subjective statement is less objective, in that two readers may not agree about the proper interpretation of the statement.  so I don't want to imply that subjective statements are out of place, but until we can get them cited from a verifiable source, I would prefer to keep our content contributions as clear and verifiable as possible.  The Gomm 04:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Trade unions in Pakistan
Thanks. Siddiqui 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Dear Book and Coffee Thanks you for the message. I have written on subject matter I have researched from Thesis on Joseph R. Knowland, my MA degree 1982 Univ San Francisco. The Knowland's Joseph, Joseph R. and William F. The Oakland Tribune where I worked as did my father. The Tribune Tower and the International Typographical Union of which myself, my father and my father oldest brother were members. Thanks for the information. Please let me know what my strengths and weaknesses are in my writing for you publication. I will have some questions. I have tried to do my best on here. Sincerely, USTYE

General strike/Summary merge
Is this a common approach? I have never seen it before. It seems to me that there are versioning, potential NPOV, and namespace problems that would preclude this project from functioning in the way it appears to be working. I read the project subpage and the discussion this idea came from, and I don't see any real discussion of such concerns. Let me know if you can provide more context. I'll try to look into the matter as well. It's early to commit to such a thing, but I think perhaps a RFC may be necessary if this is as new an idea as I think it is. Erechtheus 09:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. As far as NPOV goes, I think the risk is that the summary will become a POV fork from the main. That's what I have seen happen in a couple of other occasions when there were two versions of one article in the main namespace. Erechtheus 10:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Honestly, I know very little about RfC at this point other than it can be a good way to get a wider view on a topic. I'll let you know what I dig up. Erechtheus 18:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I placed my findings on the summary subproject talk page. Thanks for providing the great introduction to our discussion so far. Erechtheus 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Articles
Hi Book and Coffee,

I would like to know if you expand on an article; can it be featured ? Must a featured article have no one except yourself as the author ? How can I have my material reviewed and see what the critics think ? I cannot download photos in one of my articles ? I look forward to your response. Thank you. Regards, USTYE Ustye 07:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Ustye, thanks for the note. Sorry I was so slow to get back to you. Definitely you can get an article featured. What is a featured article? is a good starting point for finding out about the process. One of the key ideas of Wikipedia is collaboration, so don’t worry about being the only author/editor. If this is about the International Typographical Union article, I would suggest that you begin with the Good article candidates process, which is a couple steps away from featured status. There you will find information about expectations, as well as a review process.


 * As for loading photos, there is an upload page you can use to load images into articles. You need to pay particular attention to copyright and usage details, but assuming you have permission to use the photos they are certainly a welcome addition to an article.


 * Does that answer a few of your questions? Let me know if I can help more. (I’ll try to get back to you quicker as well!) Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Trade union vs Labor union
Hi, I've noticed you've been making automated substitutions of "trade union" for "labor union". While I appreciate the attention you've shown to categorization, I don't believe that this change is necessarily warranted and is probably inaccurate in the U.S. context. "Trade union" is usually considered as subset of a "labor union", and the equivalent of a craft union. A trade union will represent members of a particular and discrete job, like ironworkers, train porters, etc. Most of these unions originate in the old AFL labor federation. The term "trade union" is used in distinction to another kind of labor union, the "industrial union", which represents members who work in all jobs across an industry, like auto workers, communication workers, etc. Most "industrial unions" were at one time part of the CIO. Neither "trade union" nor "industrial union" is used much in the U.S. context, in favor of the general term "labor union". In fact, the U.S.-"trade union" model is becoming more rare in the U.S. as the old craft unions merge. For all these reasons, it seems somewhat inaccurate to link to the trade union page with every reference. There must be some way to account for the US usage and retain labor union as a larger category, while making it clear neither category represents a worldwide point of view. DJ Silverfish 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi DJ Silverfish, thanks for your note. Labor union is indeed the preferred term in the US, but you'll have to be more specific about which changes you are referring to. Unless I have made an error, all the changes I have made recently in the article space have been merely to avoid redirects. There simply isn't an article for "labor unions" it is just a redirect to trade unions. For example, labor union is now labor union . There should not be any change to the visible text. Please let me know if this is not the case. The other change I have been making is to move historical unions from to, but I don't think that is what you are referring to. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 08:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An intersting point. In the British context, 'labour unions' would be understood, but would not be normal usage. I am not sure how much this would generally be true outside of the UK. From my expereince (which has its limitations of course) the desrciption 'trade union' is the more common. It has the same roots as you describe but its usage has been reinforced by being the description used in legislation so it is well established. Would dual categorisation be a possible answer? We have floated that as a solution to some Caribbean trade unions that are in Latin America but considered part of the Caribbean TU movement (i.e. Guyana, Belize, Suriname).


 * There is another aspect that has also just occured to me. When we talk of the 'Trade Union Movement' we mean trade unions. But once you start talking about the 'Labour Movement' it has broader connotations in the British context and would also include the political and co-operative wings of the movement as well as the industrial wing. - Dave Smith 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

John Reid article
Hi, regarding the John Reid article, I considered it was appropriate to edit the profanity in this article because of the likelihood that the page will be frequently viewed by schoolchildren and other young people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.206.171 (talk).

link spam?
Hello,

I'm confused about how this thing works.

I've added useful site links in various diecast car topics, and it appears all were removed. The last action on the Wiki is from your name.

Have I done something wrong? What si the correct procedure to add links?

Joe www.joesdiecastshack.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.44.121.252 (talk).

Thanks for the help on the locals list on my ITU article
Hi Book and coffee, Thank you for the polish on the ITU article listing the locals. I am still learning. I have some info from the ITU history and facts on the AFL that I will be adding. Ustye 08:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What is happening ??
I wrote material on the demise of the ITU and on the possible merger with the GCIU. I wrote more on the Union Printers Home and the AFL and the ITU. All that work was all deleted and I am the only person to be credited with the site. If I do the work and put in the time and research where does it go ?? Thank you Ustye 21:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Book and Coffee
Thanks again I rewrote the missing ITU material. As an ex- printer, (how I paid for my college education), writer, student and historical researcher is still trying. Thanks again for the help and advice. Take careUstye 23:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Orgs
Yep, it is.

You see I began the category, finding alot of groups that weren't in the earlier Nazi Organizations cat, that I didn't know about. When I realized that there was another cat that was already doing what I had set out to do, then I put the ones that weren't currently included in the earlier one. I'll probably merge them sometime.

Good catch.

Sincerly Jonathan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dudeman5685 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 October, 2006 (UTC).

Ironworkers
Please do a search on ironwoker and click onto 'International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers' in the 1st paragraph. After you've looked around and checked out the external links as well, let me know what your opinion is. --The Rudedog JIW Ironworker 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Thank you

Please do a search on ironworker and click onto 'International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers' in the 1st paragraph. After you've looked around and checked out the external links as well, let me know what your opinion is. --The Rudedog JIW Ironworker 00:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Thank you

Sorry, new at this--The Rudedog JIW Ironworker 01:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting
Hi Bookandcoffee,

I noticed you are sorting out the Caribbean trade unions. I just wanted to ask you not to leave the Caribbean-stub on the articles you mark with the Caribbean-trade-union-stub.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 09:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:GA-Class Ethnic groups articles
Hi Bookandcoffee,

Cool user name... Thanks for adding the above page to Category:GA-Class articles.

Is there a quick 'n easy way to find the intersection of any two categories? How do I (quickly) find all the Ethnics groups articles that are GA-class? Thanks! --Ling.Nut 18:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ling.Nut (rhymes with wing nut? :)


 * That's an interesting question. I'm not sure how you could easily detect the intersection between two categories. It can be done within AWB by skipping articles that don't have both cats - but I'd suggest a more mundane method. I only touched the cat because I'm doing some minor category work, but I'm assuming your assessment work is just starting. If it was me I'd just take a more systematic approach of working through all the Ethnic groups articles and update the tag for all Grading scheme classes. Does the project have a complete assessment department, or is it a bit ad hoc? I'd suggest fleshing out the whole department; it'll make things easier in the long run. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 18:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't really an intersection issue. The GA list is so small you can go through it manually. It's at WP:GOOD and is sorted by subject. --kingboyk 19:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You're doing a fine job going through those categories but I'm alarmed at how long it might take you. I've done the same myself, edited every category in that tree only to find that the bot creator could have done it in code in 5 minutes. I'd advise asking at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, maybe the bot can do the job? --kingboyk 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for all the comments. Yes, Ling.Nut rhymes with wingnut (deliberately), and the "ling" stands for "linguistics." I found the WP:GOOD subsection for cultures and there are only 6 or 8 pages that fit my needs.. so I tagged 'em. I appreciate the help from both of you.. Now, FAs next.. and... you know, I'm assuming there is no umbrella category for A-class and B-classarticles throughout Wikipedia, but I'll look... Cheers! --Ling.Nut 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

CUPE
Yes, I thought of that after the fact; I had been basing it on Category:AFL-CIO. In general, I think there is some precedent for having abbreviations as category names, but the ones I'm thinking of have very long full names.

I'm busy at the moment, but I woudl support, if you care to nominate it on WP:CFD. Otherwise, I'll do it myself in a little while. Regards, --Saforrest 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Solidarity
That article, which you contributed to, has been substantially improved and is now undergoing FAC review. Your comments, as that of a person familiar with the article, would certainly be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

United Brotherhood of Carpenters
Hello " Bookandcoffee ",

You asked for a reference source about my entry to the wikipedia article about the UBC ( United Brotherhood of Carpenters ).

This came from the book ; " WHICH SIDE OUR YOU ON " by Thomas Geoghegan

The book is about the experiences of PRO-LABOR Labor attorney ( Geoghegan ) and his frustrating experiences with the corrupt leadership of Union officials in certain Unions ( in particular the Teamsters and the Carpenters ).

The author documents cases he represented defending rank nd file members. In regards to the Carpenters, he also documents the begings and reasons for the anti-democratic District / Regional Council structure in the Carpenters " union ".

If you have any further questions, you may contact me at unionyes@ameritech.net. My name is David Johnson, I live in Champaign IL. USA, and I am a Union Carpenter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by McGuire (talk • contribs).

Re:SDA
Both versions are not neutral. One (the original) is postive while the other is negative. I honestly just don't know enough about the union to be able to write an effective article on it; I reverted back not only because of the bias flip, but because the original version has the correct wikilinks. michael talk 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What's to be done
Hi, B&C -- thanks for the hello and a sorry for the "unsigned" entry (I was following the talk and had just read about the importance, and technique/process, of adding missing sigs, so I "practiced" ).

First let me say thankyou for all that you have done getting the labor/labour articles/project developed—I know others have, & will, contributed greatly, but you appear to have made the foundational contributions.

I've been spending most of the past month trying to get the hang of (simple) editing and have been reading everything: Mos, How-to's, Afd's-speedies/contested, talk page reading (article/user), etc. I've also done a smattering of edits, re-direct and link fixes, posted a few questions (don't think I got but the one reply, see below--and I think he's wrong but I haven't tried to follow up yet) etc.

Now I'm beginning to get frustrated with the shear amount of work that can/needs to be done here (as in LabourProject 'here' and Wikipedia 'here') and I don't know where I'll fit in.

Let me just note a few sample items form this area which "get my goat" and which I would like to fix, or have fixed, but don't know where to begin:


 * Inconsistent naming of Categories:
 * Trade unions of the United States vs. Former United States labor unions
 * X trade unions vs. X labor unions (see category Trade unions by industry)
 * Article Labor unions in the United States is in Category:Trade unions of the United States ?!!
 * What's with Category:Labor which has Main article Labour (economics)


 * Categories that should probably be lists (on their main article page, or a List of labor union presidents (et al.) by union?):
 * Presidents of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
 * (Or will we have a category for the presidents of every major union? And why stop there, why not other officers too?)

and much more... But, I think I'm "venting" so, I'll stop here and just note that I expect you'll say it's more appropriate for me to address these issues on the relevent talk pages. So I'll be ready to do that--just asking/alerting you in case you have some sage advice to give me before I stick my neck out?

BTW, I happen to have access to the Tamiment Library/Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives at NYU (I am the copy-cataloger for that department) so if you have any special search requests feel free... (I also expect that I should expand that article!). --RCEberwein | Talk 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jumping right in
Actually, I had seen some of that discussion re: Naming... So, even though I thought it awkward, I was quite willing to standardi(z/s)e usage to Labour & Trade union versus Labor & Labor union for the different reasons you are all too familiar with. Now the outliers in American English seem too weird (even though there are redirects in most instances). I think the present mixed structure will continue to mislead some editors into creating "new" categories & articles under Labor. But, enough of that for now.

I have encountered 2 Re-directs Internatinal Labour Organization and SyndicalisM which are clearly simple mis-spellings (intentional or by mistake). They have no incoming links and no history to speak of: the ILO typo was by Rich Farmbrough earlier this year and SyndicalisM's "history" is 2 lines of text created in 2001 and redirected in 2002! They would seem to be easy candidates for deletion--yet a close reading of the rules at "Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect" seems to say I can recommend "ILO" but not the "Syn"--seems we encourage the retention of all possible/ever created (my wording) links because their deletion could break legacy links?
 * (The NYU catalog had such an authority linking structure for years. Then late last year we had to clean it up for our upcoming migration to a new system and it was a hell to fix those tens of thousands of records--Yes, I was one of those "volunteered" to work on it).

So, what's your experience with this process? Should I try for it--to get some experience--& with your help? Or, should I forget it (assuming that this is difficult/impossible in the current circumstances?

Yes, this is not article building, but I do get bothered by these things and have to do something when I see them! If I believe that I can get some of these things resolved I'll have a better head for the useful work.

Thanks for any & all of your comments --RCEberwein | Talk 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks. General Idea 20:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Broken links on transcluded WikiProject Org Lab pages
Just thought you should be aware that while I was editing the Project page (to add 4 labor related lists I found) I noticed that the following:
 * "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page:" were Red:


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summary
 * -- should be "Summaries" ?


 * Template:-importance
 * -- I'll make a guess that the "i" in impotance should be "I" --(more to come) RCEberwein | Talk 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey RCEberwein, I can shed a little light on the transcluded red-links.
 * WikiProject Organized Labour/Summary is red because the Article summary is included in the Infobox section on the page, but the summary it would lead to hasn’t been created.
 * Template:-importance is an artifact from the LabourProject tag. It shows up on articles that are rated NA. I’m going to dig into it a little, to make sure it’s not out of place, but I think the tag is working properly and the template is the equivalent of an uncalled routine.
 * Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 06:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Help Me
Hello Book and Coffee,

I am very upset a person JoshuaZ has decided to block me from using the Wikipedia. I have given articles of schloarship. I am 54 years old and have a Master's Degree in History and Political Science.

I wish you could tell JoshuaZ to remove the block. If he will not remove the block. Then, I will have to follow the appeal process or just give up on Wikipedia.

I thank you for talking to JoshuaZ and look forward to him removing the block.

Sincerely,

USTYE

German Christian Workers' Federation
Hi Bookandcoffee,

Once again I'm looking to move an article about a German trade union you started. This time its the German Christian Workers' Federation. Using google I can find no non-Wikipedia hits under that name. The correct literal translation of the German name Christlicher Gewerkschaftsbund Deutschlands would be "Christian Trade Union Federation of Germany", which gets quite a few hits on google (http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Christian+Trade+Union+Federation+of+Germany%22&meta=); a few more can be found under "Christian Union Federation" (http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Christian+Union+Federation%22+German&meta= some of them are not the German union). What do you think?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. Your "Christian Trade Union Federation of Germany" search does seem to provide more hits doesn't it. That would be my choice, but I'm happy to go with which ever one you think is best. --Bookandcoffee 18:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

International Trade Union Confederation
The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and World Confederation of Labour both dissolved on 31st October 2006 and merged to form the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

I've put a brief entry in for the ITUC but would be pleased if you would look at the following issues:


 * on both the ICFTU and WCL info boxes the 'merged into' information does not appear correctly;


 * on the ICFTU entry, I seem to have moved the 'Social Democracy' info box but can't see what I did to mess this up or how to put it right! So help!!!


 * there really ought to be an amendment to the info boxes throughout showing the affiliations to ICFTU and WCL should now be to ITUC. I know there must be an easy way to do this but ... - Dave Smith 02:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Grr... you beat me to it! Good work - I was going to work on the merger tonight:) I'll have a look at the ICFTU and WCL pages - the merger field is a bit fussy sometimes. I'm also planning to troll through the infoboxes with WP:AWB to substitute the new ITUC link.--Bookandcoffee 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe when the ITUC and WFTU merge you'll get there first :-) I did some brief editing on both the ICFTU and WCL pages putting some things in the pat tense. I'll leave the merger fields up to you. Why did the 'Social Democracy' info box move? - Dave Smith 09:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why the SD box moved. It "floats" on the right, and I've never figured out exactly what ordering criteria are used for that. I think sometimes it can just be the addition or subtraction of a little text that slightly changes float locations. I actually removed it completely from the article (after changing the bottom org on the list from ICFTU to ITUC) but I see it was put back on the page - oh well, no harm I guess.--Bookandcoffee 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope I won't be out of line to say: I'm not sure I like the way you are going about this. By listing only the new association and removing all mention of the old one, you suppress over 50 years of history. Shouldn't we maintain mention of the old affiliations as historical? - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting issue. I was looking at your edit to the AFL-CIO and couldn't help wondering - I don't have any problem at all with putting the ICFTU reference in, but it begs the question; should every reference to the ICFTU include an aside that it came out of the WFTU? Where do you draw the historical line, and to some extent, isn't that what the links are for? I don't think there is any effort to remove all mention of the old structures. Most action has just been a simple substitution, but edits where the language was more complicated, or had a historical connotation, I tried to incorporate both. (eg. ACILS) The AFL-CIO is a good example for this, as it is still woefully small. A proper history of the org would of course include discussion of the ICFTU.
 * But you do have a point. Given that this is a recent event it might well make sense to use "ITUC, the 2006 merger between the ICFTU and the WCL" as required.--Bookandcoffee 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Trade union graph
Hello,

The graph come from a french history-geography book used in "classe de 3ème", au "collège". It's for 14 years old pupils (in France,the Classe de 3ème is the last year of collège, then pupils go to lycée (14-18 yo) and then to the university. Have a nice day. Historicair 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

TNA
Thank you for reconsidering, nice to see someone who actually checks things properly before reverting for a change.Flexxx 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong
just look at the article of Hong Kong,which clearly states that Hong Kong is one of the two special administrative regions (SARs) of the People's Republic of China (PRC),which cannot be considered as another country.I just changed all the categories relating the category by country.Ksyrie

Back!
Hey Chris... My long vacation is over. Glad to be rid of the burn-out. I'm stuffed with Thanksgiving food (the American kind), and trying to catch up on the assessment stuff. Just learning the ropes there...you're blowing me away with information, which is good. You are doing some amazing super-terrific work!!! Tim1965 23:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)