User talk:Drmies/Archive 90

Picking up the conversation from the Auden talk page
As we were saying...

About the provocations from a former editor on the Auden talk page: I could see that the best thing to do was to ignore them, and never to get into any further arguments, no matter what the provocation, because nothing good could come of it. As you say, User:SilkTork and User:Sadads turned an ugly situation into something very productive, and I watched that process with genuine admiration, gratitude, and even awe.

I also admired - and envied - the superhuman patience with which you and SilkTork and MelanieN and other admins dealt with that other editor, always hoping to educate, always looking for some potential merits. And then I also admired the decisive way the situation got dealt with when there was provocation too many. I'm genuinely impressed, and not saying this to be polite.

While we're more or less on the subject, I was puzzled for a while by that editor's insistence that there were two book-length studies of the connection between Yeats and Auden, because I knew for a fact that no such book-length studies existed. The other editor said something like "You could search for them on Google or Amazon and then claim you knew about them already." Eventually, the other editor identified the two books, but seemed only to know their titles, probably discovered by searching on Google or Amazon. The book by Richard Ellmann, Eminent Domain (a terrific book, by the way), isn't a "full-length study" of Yeats and Auden; in fact only one of its six chapters is about Auden. The other book, Saving Civilization, by Lucy Macdiarmid, is an excellent compare-and-contrast account of Yeats, Eliot, Auden as they separately confronted the social issues of the 1920s and 1930s, not a study of the "connection" between any of the three.

What baffles me is why anyone should want to waste their time inventing this kind of thing, but I suppose the admins have seen it all too often. I'd be fascinated to read any books or essays about the twists and turns of Wikipedia-editing. I expect some of the stories are hair-raising.

And thank you for the barnstar! And apologies for rambling on like this... - Macspaunday (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary. I gotta get to work--I have Christine de Pizan waiting for me on my coffee table, and a nice and fairly new book called Medieval Writings on Secular Women. I'm being raked over the coals at ANI for "defending" a very, very unpopular person--that is, I don't want them site-banned (yet). I sometimes find myself coming to the defense, or partial defense, of that one unpopular editor that everyone wants banned, and in the past I have not done enough to defend some who were indefinitely banned. So occasionally, when I run into one of those editors, I try not to be too hard. MusicAngels came up, having created...I can't remember what they were called, Poetry of the 20th century or something like that, and one for the 21st century. The articles were highly problematic, it came up at ANI, I ended up deleting them (or maybe one was deleted by another admin, can't remember), but stopped short of blocking though I suppose another admin could have (but didn't). Then they got into with an IP editor, or maybe more, and there was a bit of disruption from the IP editor (here on this talk page too), and they hit back with--well, all the stuff you saw listed on their own ANI thread, and then they got indef-blocked by, of course. Thing is, they care greatly about poetry and not a lot of people here do, so I was hoping maybe we could work with them. In the end, they were unworkable with, so to speak, but I held out as long as I could. With the disruptive editor whose siteban seems to be all but decided on ANI, I feel the same way: I don't think they should be banned for the charges on which they are brought up, though they'll probably end up getting themselves indef-blocked for their behavior. Melanie tried hard with MusicAngels (harder than me) and I truly commend those editors and admins who have so much patience. The downside is that we get called out for "enabling". Well, that's not fun, but I'd rather live with that reputation than block and ban too quickly. Alright--sorry for my ramblings; perhaps this is yet another argument for a siteban, haha. Sadads is a really nice guy, by the way. (He should go to that Computers and Writing conference in Rochester, NY, and work on his resume.) All the best, Drmies (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A friend got me reading all of Julian of Norwich and Marjorie Kemp recently (I'd only read a few excerpts before this), and that Penguin anthology about medieval secular women is very much on my list. (Auden reviewed the 1930s edition of The Book of Marjorie Kemp, which is how I first heard about her.) About banning difficult editors: an outsider's view isn't worth much, but I can see that the moral conflict between protecting a community from harm on the one hand, and, on the other hand, hesitating before harsh punishments is a tricky one to navigate. As a user of Wikipedia, I suppose the one offense that seems unquestionably banishment-worthy is consistent falsehood - poisoning the well, so that people who come along months or years later get poisoned by what was left earlier. The case we've both been talking about has that quality, I think, but that's only an opinion, because I haven't looked at enough of the details. - You mentioned that User:Sadads is a Thackeray fan; any friend of Thackeray is a friend of mine, though I admit that I never opened the second Everyman's Library volume of Pendennis after finishing the first. Thackeray (in his early years as a pseudonymous reviewer) has a wonderful few lines about how he decided which three-volume novels not to read. He first opens to the last chapter; if he finds a page that begins "In a small churchyard in Shropshire, there is a stone with the name 'Anna Maria'", he shuts the book immediately, "declining to agitate my feelings further." It's a good principle for any reader, I think. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In theory I am "Thackeray Fan", haven't actually read anything by him, but more appropriately  per the conversation I "wouldn't trust [me] near real verse" - very true. I am a novels commentator/article writer first, a scholar of cultural/literary criticism second, and a general advocate for humanities communication. Though, I am happy to say, I helped a class of students fill in the Songs of Innocence and of Experience poem pages, and worked with the Blake Archive for a short window (see WP:Blake ).
 * The critique on the Auden page definitely got some good work started! Thanks so much for following up Macspaunday! I wish I had more time to do more specific feedback on-wiki, and will try to do another close read on the page in an evening sometime in the next week. Sadads (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blake Archive for a short window?
 * "This life's dim windows of the soul
 * Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
 * And leads you to believe a lie
 * When you see with, not through, the eye." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And here I thought I was going to be able to reminisce about Henry Esmond and Vanity Fair with a real Thackeray fan! I've been waiting for that chance for years.... I can still hope... - I've actually made a start on that styles and themes section for the Auden page, but need some more time before posting anything for comment. Meanwhile, on the subject of Blake, and styles, compare the opening of the third section of Auden's "In Memory of W. B. Yeats" with the opening of Blake's "The Tyger". Auden's goes like this (quoting from memory): "Earth, receive an honoured guest. / William Yeats is laid to rest. / Let the Irish vessel lie / Emptied of its poetry." Basically the same rhyme as "eye" and "symmetry", which is very neat, I think. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I don't know much about the poems themselves or Blake, the cultural legacy of use and reuse of the poems are fascinating -> and I have read quite a bit of scholarship on that. One of these days I will start a WikiData project for the "Sum of All Blake" - which take books like this one on music and turns them into actually useful data. If I you know interested in a PHD project for something like this, I would love to help map the work for it. Sadads (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I was guessing about Sadads and Thackeray. I don't know Sadads that well, though I know they're a novel person, and I don't know Thackeray at all, but there are two things: "Thackeray fan" is my go-to insult, and someone I knew had a wall full of Thackeray volumes, and got a divorce, very sad. But what's funny is, that epitaph for Yeats, I had those lines going through my head a couple of days ago on that other talk page but couldn't find a funny or appropriate way to put them in; they're some of my favorite lines. I love someone treating the dead with respect. I wish Achilles had learned that lesson earlier. I don't frequently teach the modern Brits; I may never have taught them at all, so I don't have them at heart. My intimate encounters with them were in grad school, under the tutelage of the now-retired and model New Critic Dwight Eddins. Turns out he was secretly a Cormac McCarthy fan anyway, haha. But I tell you what, Macspaunday--if you tell me what you do with this literature, professionally or otherwise, and how you find the time to read those long sentences, I'll read a Thackeray novel, and you get to pick it. For my part, I'll just say I'm a tenured "medievalist" at a fair to middling satellite campus. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My thesis adviser wrote a few books about Victorian novels, and got me started reading Thackeray - and not only Thackeray but strange forgotten novels like Paul Clifford by Edward Buller-Lytton (all of us had to find used copies somehow, back in the days before online searching). But Vanity Fair was utterly memorable, and worth reading for the sheer pleasure of it. - You put your cards on the table, so here are mine: I haven't read Thackeray for ten or fifteen years. I'm officially a tenured "modernist" at a medium-sized university that has its ups and downs, but I also teach a lot of first-year courses that let me range over literature that I officially don't know about. Your reference to Achilles reminds me that I point out to students the dream in which the dead Patroclus tells Achilles, "You have forgotten me" - meaning that all the revenge that Achilles is taking doesn't do Patroclus any good at all; as you say, it shows no respect to the dead. - So, if you read Vanity Fair I'll read your recommended medieval work; say the name and I'm on my way. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Macspaunday, I was looking over my book order from next semester and was reminded to unarchive this thread. Right now I'm looking at a Penguin book, Medieval Writings on Female Spirituality, and that will make the cut (though a reviewer noted one problematic aspect--they are all translations from ME versions, which are translations from French and Latin versions...); I decided against Medieval Writings on Secular Woman since, for all its value in a history or sociology class, it does not present much literary language, and I want to talk about tropes and metaphors and intertextuality. (Ha, that last word is underlined in red by Mozilla--someone needs to update that lexicon.) Now, I'll get a copy of Vanity Fair (it will have to wait until I finish The Wake and Miles Davis's autobio). My medieval suggestion? Hmm. How about the Lays of Marie de France? The Glyn Burgess translation is fine; the more recent Hackett edition is good for class use. Wonderful stuff. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Newbie
Hello, I am new and not yet familiar with all the technicalities. May I bother you from time to time with my questions? I need some guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examen Intelligentia (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, even if technicalities are not my specialty. The MacDaddy of technicalities is, whose comments frequently go way over my head, which I take as a sign of superior Intelligence. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you have me confused with, who's the best WP technogeek I know. Nonetheless, , feel free to post questions at User talk:EEng, where I and my glittering salon of talk page stalkers will help as best we can. EEng (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind answer and your welcome on my talk page. Thank you too, EEng. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good—‌goooooood! My plan is working perrrrfectly!  See right. EEng (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Just kidding, of course. Welcome!
 * In my experience, about one hundredth of one percent of "newbies" go on to become productive editors. Those who come "hat in hand" to this talk page increase their chances of success by at least an order of magnitude. Maybe more, depending on sincerity, which is notoriously difficult to gauge online. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, agree! I was just thinking the same.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Any theories on why this page in particular? Is it something in the water? EEng (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good karma, what else? And a little bit of Prarabdha karma of course, to be worked out in this life. Otherwise, it must be a morphogenetic field ;)  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dries?.He's just some dude I met in Boston a few years back, at a "certified smart Wikipedian" gathering, who seemed "sincere". Someone who can simulate sincerity face-to-face and online must be a great actor. I never met Rod Steiger, so I drop by this saloon instead. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have asked Mrs. Cullen for a dance. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Illustrations for Fort Worth Circle article
Dear Drmies,

I agree that the Fort Worth Circle article needs at least a few illustrations. A lot of issues to consider (copyright, etc.) but I am working on it and hope to have the article illustrated soon.Papernpencils2015 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Near-field inductive coupling
When you read, make sure you read every word. It's enthralling.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "As We May Think" was also quite prescient.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The caption in that article is one of the longest I've ever seen. More like lead than a caption. A little more sourcing would be nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "The whole earth will be converted into a huge brain"! Wow! There is still hope for me. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no hope for any of us (as the orcs in Moria chant "doom", "doom").--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great Zot! Geoff &#124; Who, me? 16:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad y'all think this amusing. We still don't know if Tesla was Serbian, Croatian, or just Yugoslavian. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . . . or whether the proper spelling is "yogurt" or "yoghurt". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . . . at which point, bring in this guy Geoff &#124; Who, me? 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Filed at Meta blacklist
Hi Drmies, I filed truecrimebookreviews.com at meta blacklist. I removed 20+ links to this after seeing your removal. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! Wow, and they say nothing gets done here. Mind you, I only repeated what the internet told me, or my browser (Google Chrome) or whatever--I clicked on the link and I got this Malware Don't Go To The Site kind of warning, in some bright color. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Drmies (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A COI editor asking for help at Talk:Anthony Marinelli
Hi Drmies. is a COI editor, who in compliance with Paid-contribution disclosure disclosed on Talk:Anthony Marinelli:

009o9 is asking for a review at Talk:Anthony Marinelli of the proposed changes at User:009o9/Draft Anthony Marinelli. He contacted me here, asking me for a review. I've already copyedited the article and removed some promotional wording (e.g. "star-studded montage of musicians such as (David Bowie, Cher, Blondie); a loaded cast of Rodney Bingenheimer's "A-list" friends").

Would you (or a helpful talk page watcher) take a look at the article draft at User:009o9/Draft Anthony Marinelli to determine whether it is sufficiently neutral to be moved to mainspace? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a long, long article; 009o9 should pay us. Question then is to which extent is it a resume, and to which extent to the sources discuss him in any depth. The lead certainly should be pruned (more). I'll see what I can do in the next day or so, Cunard. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about the length, the subject is quite prolific, his existing article does not indicate this in any way. Quite a bit of the length (76kb) is in film, disk and award tables.  Additionally, when a subject wears a lot of hats (musician, composer, conductor, record producer, sound-studio owner, pioneer in synthesizer adoption for film), there is quite a bit content that may be of interest to various readers and Wikiprojects.  Marinelli also has penchant for getting involved in interesting documentary and experimental films (with very notable casts) which I feel merits some expansion. Thanks! -- 009o9 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but Marie de France also had lots of hats and she weighs in at 33k, not 77k. I see what you mean with the tables. In general, for (guest) musicians, producers, arrangers, etc., I think we should list those things that are verifiably important, i.e., where the person has done such significant work that it is written up and reviewed, not just mentioned. Otherwise we are really in the business of writing resumes. Imagine if we listed every album produced by Eddie Offord, or every album mastered by Bob Ludwig. That's just two pennies, of course. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Those speaking engagements certainly have to go. He did them, it's verified by reliable sources (I suppose), but they are of no encyclopedic interest whatsoever--it's resume information. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, when comparing to Offord or Ludwig, there are around 1000 Marinelli scored television commercials and a couple of dozen television shows that have not been detailed unless he won accolades, or the work/contribution is otherwise notable. On the other hand, if we knew anything at all about Marie de France, including her real name, I wonder how long the article would be? In comparison of the 33kb vs. 76kb I've used, it appears that I've been pretty frugal considering what is actually know about Marinelli and how many hats (professions) he has worn -- not owned.  Additionally, all four of Marie de France's known works appear to be listed in the article (in prose).  On the speaking engagements, Marinelli is open to teaching and mentoring, perhaps "Teaching and mentoring" would be a better title for the section.  He has expressed to me that he would enjoy giving back to the community as an adjunct professor. (So this information would be of interest to colleges.)
 * A full discography and filmography is very common on the Wikipedia, why would all of the referencing on this article be required to meet WP:N? Cheers -- 009o9 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a for instance, Sandra Bullock's bio is 55kb, with a separate filmography that is 29kb. Her filmography includes television and she doesn't have a discography as far as I know.  She has an additional Awards list article that weighs in at 56kb. That's roughly twice as much ink, devoted to far less work. Cheers! -- 009o9 (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, my complaint about relative size is just another version of my complaint about the world. But your guy isn't really Sandra Bullock: "She is one of Hollywood's highest-paid actresses, and is the recipient of one Academy Award from two nominations, and one Golden Globe Award from five nominations. She was named the "Most Beautiful Woman" by People magazine in 2015", to cite a well-known online source. She won an Oscar. Your guy won a Mobius Award (what is a Mobius Award? if they're not notable, they should be cut), and a Silver Hugo for an ad (can't find it on the Chicago Film Festival website). So that's really not a good comparison. I didn't say referencing needs to meet WP:N--that doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. What I said was that the references need to discuss something, not just mention it. We don't insert every single factoid just because it happened: we need to insert facts that are meaningful and relevant, not to the person who is the subject of the article but to the reader. What does it mean that he was a musician on a 1984 Lionel Richie album? Synth programming--it's meaningful enough to be on the cover, I suppose, cause he got paid for it, but that really doesn't mean it's meaningful in a larger sense: for all I know he was just one of dozens of studio cats who got hired to do a job, maybe a really small job (there's three more synth programmers on that album, for instance). And so speaking engagements are really nothing. Good for him, but nothing in the larger sense, until you prove that it was a notable event in the way that Tolkien's 1936 lecture on Beowulf was. (Not to the same extent, but in the same way.) And that some "giving back" would be of interest to colleges, that's not for here: it's for his agent, or his website; calling a speaking engagement "teaching and mentoring" is just window dressing. No, you need to get away from the resume building. If you want to put this up in mainspace, go ahead; I was asked for my opinion and I gave it. If it goes up, expect serious pruning (not necessarily by me, though that's the first thing I would do) and some tagging. Them's the shakes. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I am looking for, perfectly willing to work with the community on this, let's see what happens. As for Sandra Bullock, I a fan, but try watching her most compelling performances without the soundtrack/score. The Lionel Richie and Michael Jackson connection came about because they were inventing a new way to provide orchestration with Quincy Jones, Marinelli (primarily the musician) and Banks (primarily the programmer). Thanks again! -- 009o9 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Drmies, for taking the time to review the draft and provide valuable feedback about how it can be improved. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

AD
I was in the middle of writing a shocked "what the hell are you talking about?!" reply to AmericanDad86's bizarre ramble on my talk page before I noticed that he was indeffed and saw some of the other garbage he wrote. So weird. Hacked? Whatever. For the record, I edited the Raven-Symone article months before he did. His article indeed... Sad story. Maybe he got tired of the long con? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Goo-themed girl...
Does this look like a light copyvio of this to you? We can use Wikia for content, but there's no attribution here. Also, what's a "goo-themed girl"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

AmericanDad86
Wow.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. I mean, we get weird stuff sometimes, but usually not from established editors. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Aiol and Mirabel
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in masculism
I wasn't sure if this was a problem, but after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Anti-feminist, concerning the same editor, I thought I should let you know about it after I patrolled it. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we ran into that a while ago; I just don't really know what to do with that. That is, I don't know where we draw the line (well, if WP:COLOR is a line, the template crosses it). That MfD also lists Template:User who experienced domestic violence as a husband. said he shouldn't be the one nominating it; perhaps  can give the matter some thought. I don't think either is as...divisive as the deleted one but, again, I am just not sure., maybe you have thoughts on the matter? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've also noticed there's no Category:Users who experienced domestic violence as a wife, Category:Users who have experienced domestic violence, or any other category for Wikipedians beginning with "Users who have experienced". --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the commonality in these userboxen is that they are created by Veera.sj and only used on his user page. He also has a few pages on the subject of husband abuse in India which have been deleted, such as Template:Scapegoat of Dowry Law, Cruelty against Husband in India and Category:Wikipedians interested in Anti Feminism and the still existing Category:Users who experienced domestic violence as a husband. I think Template:User who experienced domestic violence as a husband is ripe for an MfD. Liz  Read! <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really keen on any of them as I think the focus needs to stay on content rather than an over-arching assortment of editor cats. I think infoboxes are a great way to individualize a userpage, but limit associated cats. My US$0.02.--Rosiestep (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've done way too much evaluation of these and would prefer someone else handles the rest though I think this sort of unwanted political posturing doesn't belong here. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the userboxes that are only on his userpage, and that have an obviously polemic or political or MySpace-type quality, should be deleted. The user is already using his userpage as a MySpace or dating or polemic page; this really has to stop, per WP:NOTWEBHOST etc. Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC); edited 07:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that bad, but put it up at MfD and see what happens. It's hard for me to say what generally the outcome of such a discussion might be, and clearly opinions differ. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Geralt of Rivia‎‎
While I reverted your edit, I concur with your worries. For quite some time I am watching the fancruft blossoming around The Witcher Saga. I've been planing to trim it myself. Could you please indicate me an the policy how to handle these fictional worlds? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kajit paron
FYI - I have renominated User:Kajit paron for speedy deletion: like you I believe this was perfectly ok as a user page but IMO this subsequent version is not; it was previously deleted when it was the same or broadly the same as the latter. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ? Drmies (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I've responded everywhere, and reverted the userpage to before the additions and before the last speedy notice. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC).

Cat-a-Lot
Please do, and do let me know how they turn out. I'm almost tempted to watch to see the latest incarnation of Trey Gowdy's hair. (Notice I said "almost"...)

I'm about done with the Cat-a-Lot for now, though, if you wish to poke your head back in the Recent Changes section. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)