User talk:Enkyo2/Ōnin 応仁 1467

Listing of Titsingh source
/Ōnin 応仁 1467 It seems odd to me that you should blank your talk page, as it prevents anyone from knowing what has been previously discussed, what your responses and views were, etc. But, hey, that's your prerogative.

I thought you should know that a discussion has begun here as to the validity and importance of your adding the Titsingh book to so many articles. Citations from a source, in any language, are of course wonderful, but the implication that this is relevant "Further reading" for so many topics, and that it's an appropriate suggestion for the English-language Wikipedia seems a bit much. In any case, I am not here to criticize or anything like that, but to inform you of the discussion - it would not be appropriate to talk about this behind your back, so to speak. Thanks. LordAmeth 11:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since your particular focus is military history, perhaps it's best to begin my explanation with something that involves fighting -- the unremitting military action in northern Honshu as Matsu and Echigo resisted campaigns to bring the entire island within the ambit of imperial domination. You say that Titsingh's translation of Odai Ichiran is still inaccessible to you personally because you don't read French, but I'm posting an English translation in Wikipedia so that you and others can incorporate "new" data within what you already know.  Please consider this point in its "stub" context here.
 * Wadō 2, in the 3rd month (709): There was an uprising against governmental authority in Mutsu province and in Echigo province. Troops were promptly dispatched to subdue the revolt.Titsingh, p. 64.<./ref>


 * Having demonstrated plausible utility with a minor engagement within the ambit of Japanese military history, can we at least agree that this isn't spam? The fact of the matter is that there are large areas into which Wikipedia has not yet expanded, and the Titsingh translation of Odai Ichiran fills that void perfectly because the citation incorporates a direct link to a digitized version of his text. The fact that an otherwise blank page has at least one citation on it tells anyone who consults Wikipedia that there is something to find, that there is an "answer" -- it's just not quite there yet ... a work in progress, so to speak.


 * From a historiography perspective, I would invite you to consider Nipon o daï itsi ran in a peculiar Japanese context created by even older texts -- Jinnō Shōtōki or Gukanshō. Ultimately, Wikipedia aims to be something more -- something quite different in intent and in consequence than the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica; and in that broader, long-term, evolving enterprise, I'm convinced that I'm doing exactly the right thing at the right time. Perhaps I need to revisit every citation so that I can simply enclose the tile in brackets, thus creating a clickable link to Nipon o daï itsi ran'' ...? Ooperhoofd 13:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in a discussion on Ooperhoofd's user page, before he copied it here and blanked his user page, I concur completely with LordAmeth's assessment above. In fact, I have already found several of the entries to be in error, when compared with numerous modern Japanese sources, and the Romanization problem that LordAmeth's supposes is very real. Many of the entries are rendered very difficult to comprehend, not only because of the Romanization problem, but because they use dated terms like "Miyako", etc. If Ooperhoofd were very knowledgeable about Japanese history and could separate the wheat from the chaff, it would be one thing, but this is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind. The work he has done isn't completely meaningless of course, but it is going to take a great deal of double-checking, scrubbing and editing to turn his edits from innacurate or misleading to useful. Plus, there is already an abundance of Japanese sources on Japanese history that are all in relative agreement about most of the entries that are being posted (plus an excellent English source in The Cambridge History of Japan), so why a 200 year old French translation of a book written by a Dutchman over 400 years ago, based on a Japanese source that is even older than that (not sure if I traced the history correctly, but it is difficult to keep track) should be considered useful to a reader of the English Wikipedia is difficult to comprehend. I feel bad for Ooperhoofd, because he is obviously very excited about the book and has done a lot of work based on it, but a neutral assessment of the reliability of the source is what is important here.-Jefu 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it is important to note the difference between citations and suggesting something as Further Reading. Citations are a wonderful thing, no matter what language the source is in. I am not at all opposed to the use of this book as a cited source, provided that such errors are watched out for, etc. But there is a key difference between citing something as a source and suggesting it as Further Reading. Foreign language books should not be suggested for further reading, and I don't think things should be suggested unless they are directly pertinent to the topic at hand. Even from what little I know about this book I can hazard a guess that there is not a significant percentage of the book devoted exclusively to Kujo Yoritsune or to Empress Gemmei, and therefore it should not be suggested as further reading on those subjects. Please, Ooperhoofd, if you have a specific fact or point to cite, go ahead and cite it, but do not suggest this text - which is in a foreign language, and is far too old to be a reliable source - as if it were the definitive textbook on a half dozen scattered topics. LordAmeth 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You make my point succinctly.  Prof. Timon Screech of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has assessed this work as “a necessary reference work for officials” in the Tokugawa bakufu.  The book was re-issued in 1803, which allows us to infer the requisite degree of accuracy in its dry detail.  As a place from which to begin to construct a pre-Meiji stub article for the 21st century online Wikipedia, this unique reference source should be construed as a plausible and appropriate development – not something to be to dismissed out-of-hand as you seem to do here.


 * Instead of combining to quash my enthusiasm, why not ponder the more interesting question about how or why I came to have been inspired by something which had not formerly risen to your attention?


 * I wonder: Shouldn’t you rather want to pause a little bit for further thought before determining that the unexplored possibilities for the growth of Wikipedia should be placed so casually at odds with the burgeoning, concurrent development of digitized, online books?


 * I’m not missing the gravamen of a number of issues here; but I hope you’re beginning to see that I’m not approaching two knee-jerk complaints in a superficial manner – rather, I’m trying to turn the “conversation” towards a constructive outcome.


 * Perhaps it would have been better to reject the Whig foundations of what seem to be generalized objections to anything outside the corpus of what you three Wikipedia "old hands" have already studied. That sounds a little stuffy.  I’d prefer to convert a pointless confrontation into something useful.  Can you work with me a bit more on this?


 * The current romanization of this book’s title is Nihon odai ichiran ("Table of the rulers of Japan"); but the Google Books search engine uses the title on the book itself – and so did I. I presume that the Google Books Library Project uses a similar catalog protocol.  Mine may not have been the best choice, but it was at least an informed choice to harmonize with a changing Internet milieu. With your help, I can make better choices in the future (or at least I can learn to defend those choices more tactfully). Ooperhoofd 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to quash your enthusiasm. I am simply trying to encourage you to recognize that just because the original Japanese version was accurate enough to be useful for Tokugawa-period bureaucrats does not mean that the French translation of the Dutch translation of the Japanese is accurate enough, absent the input of any historical research or revelations of the last 150 years or so, for our use today as historians. I went out drinking with Tim last night, as a matter of fact, and I very much think he would agree with me. And, since you seem to be missing this point, that citing a source and suggesting it as further reading are completely separate issues. LordAmeth 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "needs citation" tags
Adding your favorite random french retranslation of a dutch retranslation of a 300 year old Japanese book does not equal a citation. A "citation" or "reference" refers to the book(s) that were used in writing the text. Since your favorite book was not one of the books used to write these articles (you are retroactively adding it as a source), you should not be removing the tags. Please stop. Thanks! Kuuzo 00:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Kuuzo, the tenor of your writing makes it impossible to assume good faith; ergo, my reply can only be simple, plain, straightforward: No. Ooperhoofd 21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * so you will intentionally continue to break the rules because you find my "tenor" unappealing? Guess I don't get it.  To put it simply - do not remove the "needs citation" tags unless you are adding in the sources for the article.  That's all.  Claiming your favorite book is the source is false.  --Kuuzo 08:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Ooperhoofd. You've been doing some excellent work on Japanese era name and elsewhere, but the difference between "sources", "references" and "citations" on the one hand, from "further reading" on the other hand, seems to continue to elude you. If Nihon Ōdai Ichiran was not used in writing the article, it should not be listed as a reference or citation, and should not be used as a substitute for listing the sources which were actually used to write that article. In other words, please do not remove the "references needed" tag until the references actually used to write the article have been listed. Thank you. LordAmeth 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * LordAmeth, my reply is necessarily less blunt because the your approach is less derisive. I will try optimistically to assume good faith.  As I understand it, this means that I should strive to find a way to construe acumen in even casually-drafted sentences.  My first-blush reaction here, however, remains much less accommodating.  It's probably better for all of us that I decline to invest more time in what seems likely to become another unhelpful exercise; ergo: No. Ooperhoofd 21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful and well-worded response. However, unless I am missing something, what you are saying has nothing to do with the issue. This has nothing to do with "finding ways to construe acumen in even casually-drafted sentences", nor are we asking you to "invest more time" into any kind of "exercise". All we are asking you to do is to stop adding this book to the References/Sources of such a large number and wide variety of largely unrelated articles. If Nihon Ōdai Ichiran was not used in writing the article, and does not provide extensive detail about that subject, only providing perhaps a brief reference to it, a brief mention, then it should not be listed in place of those references or sources which were actually used to write the article. That's all. It's really quite simple, in fact.
 * I am not trying to be derisive, nor am I trying to discourage your work in the Ichiran or your contributions on Wikipedia as a whole, but simply to suggest that the Ichiran is not the be all and end all of reference to any and every subject in Japanese history. What we do here is not for our own personal agendas, but for the benefit of the Wiki as a whole, and as such, one should not simply say "ergo: no" when asked to stop doing things which are disruptive.
 * You seem an extremely dedicated and knowledgeable person, and I would hate for the Wiki to lose you over something so stupid and trivial. All that you have contributed to actual content of the articles has been wonderful; it is only this excessive advertisement and use of a single source which is creating friction between us. LordAmeth 16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In the past, I have sometimes responded with alacrity -- for example, when someone wrote: "I simply want to work together with others to help the project improve."  From the tenatatively generous perspective that sentence implies, I invite feedback at Talk:Japanese yen.  On that page, note especially the Wikipedia-formatted contents box which precedes many of the additions created by a variety of editors, e.g.,
 * 20 References
 * 20.1 Notes
 * 20.2 Further reading
 * 20.3 See also
 * 20.4 External links
 * Alternately, perhaps the non-nengō subject-matter of Hōkō-ji could provide a plausible opportunity for more specific constructive comments or criticisms ...? Ooperhoofd 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Disruptive? Who's kidding who?
 * The gravamen of Kuuzo's complaints is impossible to fathom, and his derisive tone is unwelcome.
 * Similarly, I find LordAmeth's pointless complaints are meritless and distracting. His reasonable tone makes it all the more frustrating.  The blunt fact remains that regardless of whatever it is he's trying to say, his sentences can't withstand close scrutiny.  I am no longer willing to invest time in parsing the gaps in reasoning or in prose.
 * This is really very simple: Both critics are quite wrong in so many ways that I hardly know where to begin.
 * These poorly drafted comments are truly disruptive. I clicked on the link to Disruptive editing; and I found that its caveats have nothing to do with anything I've done except when I dared to say "no" ....  Rather, the text convinces me that I've just made things worse with my attempts to be accommodating.  I should have said "NO" sooner and more forcefully.
 * Now I'm really annoyed -- angry even. I have already spent too many hours drafting responses to quickly dashed-off complaints which could have taken Kuuzo or LordAmeth only minutes to prepare.  My thoughtful, carefully-constructed replies to derisive comments about sources and citations are put in perspective by Wikipedia articles like Nihon Ōdai Ichiran, Jinnō Shōtōki, and Gukanshō.  In that grounded context, I've already done more than enough.  No more.
 * This "dispute" only persists because my overly-generous responses have unwittingly encouraged it. No more.


 * Assume good faith ≠ Kuuzo


 * Assume good faith ≠ LordAmeth


 * In future, if either either of these paragons writes something which does seem to make sense, which does appear to be well-considered, well-thought-out ... well, maybe I'll at least give it some thought.


 * Otherwise, "NO" will be my knee-jerk reply to anything and everything Kuuzo or LordAmeth writes.  I have neither time nor inclination to be patient with whatever it is they think they're doing.


 * One last constructive observation: Listen up, boys -- you might consider re-reading what you've written (as I have done on more than one occasion); and then maybe you'll begin to appreciate that the logical sequelae of your proposed positions are untenable.
 * Solipsism ≠ acumen. Ooperhoofd 18:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth -- WE ALREADY WENT AROUND THIS MULBERRY BUSH. You may have forgotten this mild exchange from two months ago? I haven't. Ooperhoofd 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13 JUNE: Please, Ooperhoofd, if you have a specific fact or point to cite, go ahead and cite it, but do not suggest this text - which is in a foreign language, and is far too old to be a reliable source - as if it were the definitive textbook on a half dozen scattered topics. LordAmeth 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13 JUNE: Thank you. You make my point succinctly. Prof. Timon Screech of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has assessed this work as “a necessary reference work for officials” in the Tokugawa bakufu. The book was re-issued in 1803, which allows us to infer the requisite degree of accuracy in its dry detail. As a place from which to begin to construct a pre-Meiji stub article for the 21st century online Wikipedia, this unique reference source should be construed as a plausible and appropriate development – not something to be to dismissed out-of-hand as you seem to do here.
 * Instead of combining to quash my enthusiasm, why not ponder the more interesting question about how or why I came to have been inspired by something which had not formerly risen to your attention?
 * I wonder: Shouldn’t you rather want to pause a little bit for further thought before determining that the unexplored possibilities for the growth of Wikipedia should be placed so casually at odds with the burgeoning, concurrent development of digitized, online books?
 * I’m not missing the gravamen of a number of issues here; but I hope you’re beginning to see that I’m not approaching two knee-jerk complaints in a superficial manner – rather, I’m trying to turn the “conversation” towards a constructive outcome. Ooperhoofd 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Kuuzo -- You complained about Nihon Ōdai Ichiran being SPAM in June, but you didn't participate in the process of resolving that groundless complaint. I'm not willing to go through that exercise again -- especially when you and LordAmeth demonstrate that it achieves no results except to cost me hours of time, extra work and aggravation.  The following becomes the context for how I construe what vexes you. Ooperhoofd 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13 JUNE: I've noticed over the past week or two that a user (Oooperhoofd) has been putting what appears to be a completely random old French source into every single Samurai article they can find - see [[PROOF of what?>> here<<POOF of what?]] for an example - he seems pretty jazzed about it, but it appears to be a general history source that probably doesn't even cover 1/4th of the articles it is being put into... It's almost like spam... what to do? --Kuuzo 08:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13 JUNE: Yeah... maybe we should just talk to him, might be a good first step. Personally, I find a source like this almost completely useless as (a) it's in French, and I don't read French, and this is the English Wikipedia, and (b) written in 1834, or is it 1652, it incorporates none of the knowledge and understanding that historians (i.e. academia) have acquired since then, and probably reflects at the very least some very outdated spellings and terminology, if not outright misunderstandings and factual errors. It is likely a fascinating historical artifact in its own right, and a wonderful research project in order to learn more about Titsingh's views etc. but it really should not be taken as an accurate historical record. Personally, I would take anything written by Westerners in the Far East prior to the late 19th century with a massive grain of salt. LordAmeth 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I am really sorry that you feel I am not assuming good faith, and that you find my comments "meritless and distracting." I have never been especially good at expressing my ideas as clearly as I ought to, and writing out what must be read between the lines of my comments. I do truly apologise for that. As I have said before, you seem like a very knowledgeable, educated, and dedicated editor, and I wish that we could work together rather than assuming poor faith about one another. I have tried my best to be as reasonable as possible, and I apologise if you have found that to be annoying. I can see that you are tired of these unconstructive arguments, and I too am more than willing to simply let it go. I look forward to further excellent content contributions from you, and I hope that we can work together productively and constructively in the future. LordAmeth 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I used cut-and-paste to bring the "needs references" banner from the sole specific page which has been cited by Kuuzo above. In future, if I need more information because of questions or concerns about references and citation policies which are consistent with some sort of Wikipedia standard, these links will provide convenient and easy access. Ooperhoofd 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive History
A review of the revision history for Kujō Yoritsune reveals that Kuuzo added a "needs references" tag to this page in mid-May, but added nothing further since that time. If the following is not sufficiently self-explanatory, I can probably recall what I thought I was doing; and if this were somehow to be construed as disruptive, I would attend closely. Ooperhoofd 15:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,351 bytes (adding Kogen gannen -- 康元元年)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,337 bytes (adding link -- fr:Kujō Yoritsune)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,315 bytes (removing needs references banner -- no longer relevant)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,345 bytes (→Events of Yoritsune's bakufu)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,294 bytes (→Further reading)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,027 bytes (→Notes)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,026 bytes (→Events of Yoritsune's bakufu)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,016 bytes (Events of Yoritsune's bakufu-- "Nihon Odai Ichiran")
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +7,320 bytes (adding subheading -- "Events of Yoritsune's bakufu)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +7,283 bytes (adding from "Nihon Odai Ichiran" & from "Jinno Shotoki")
 * 14 August 2007 Tadakuni +4,692 bytes
 * 14 August 2007 Tadakuni +4,691 bytes
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +4,693 bytes (adding from "Nihon Odai Ichiran")
 * 14 August 2007 Tadakuni +4,030 bytes (Further reading)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (3,677 bytes)
 * 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (3,602 bytes)
 * 17 July 2007 Bendono +3,021 bytes (Remove unnecessary pipe (En'ō))
 * 13 June 2007 Ooperhoofd +3,031 bytes
 * 13 June 2007 Ooperhoofd +2,920 bytes (adding "Eras of Yoritsune's 'bakufu'" names)
 * 30 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +2,475 bytes (→Further reading)
 * 30 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +2,471 bytes (References -- Notes & Further reading)
 * 29 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +1,584 bytes (arguable improvement in succession box?)
 * 25 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +1,541 bytes (Kujō Yoritsune in Succession Box)
 * 14 May 2007 Kuuzo +1,560 bytes (lacks sources)

Sources which were actually used to write Kujō Yoritsune
Why did my contribution to Wikipedia cause such consternation? Why did I reap naught but trouble as a result of my work? This would seem pointless, but there is no evidence that this "dispute" (for lack of a better discription) is going to fade away. In fact the following leads me to expect more ad nauseam.


 * The gravamen of Kuuzo's complaint about my work is best summarized in his own words:
 * To put it simply - do not remove the "needs citation" tags unless you are adding in the sources for the article. That's all.  Claiming your favorite book is the source is false.  --Kuuzo 08:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The gravamen of LordAmeth's complaints is more subtle, but in his own words he explains:
 * If Nihon Ōdai Ichiran was not used in writing the article, it should not be listed as a reference or citation, and should not be used as a substitute for listing the sources which were actually used to write that article. In other words, please do not remove the "references needed" tag until the references actually used to write the article have been listed. LordAmeth 16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The logical conclusion here is that Kuuzo and LordAmeth would have much preferred citations listing sources used by editors who came before me. If that were the obvious Wikipedia standard, then either or both would have been justified in reviewing the history and then contacting only those who added data; and thus, they would have discovered the original sources actually used to create this stub. No -- that can't be what they were intending?

In my view, this logical consequence of Kuuzo's words and Lord Ameth's words does not seem reasonable. If I were to contact each of the following ...? No, that's absurd -- isn't it? Ooperhoofd 16:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 9 February 2006 User:BrianSmithson m (Hepburn romanization per MOS) (undo)
 * 9 February 2006 User:BrianSmithson m (moved Kujo Yoritsune to Kujō Yoritsune: Hepburn romanization)
 * 15 January 2006 84.170.158.155 (+de)
 * 18 October 2005 131.107.0.80
 * 11 June 2005 User:DTOx
 * 10 June 2005 User:Lacrimosus m (succession box)
 * 17 March 2005 User:Everyking m
 * 4 February 2005 User:Mintleaf m (+sv)
 * 20 December 2004 User:Fvw (rv)
 * 20 December 2004 213.249.155.235
 * 19 November 2004 User:Revth m
 * 29 October 2004 User:Aphaia m
 * 28 October 2004 User:Revth m
 * 12 October 2004 User:Robbot m (Andre Engels - robot Modifying:ja)
 * 19 September 2004 User:Golbez (table, cat)
 * 13 July 2004 User:Joe Kress m
 * 13 July 2004 User:Joe Kress m (wikify table)
 * 30 June 2004 202.236.167.243 (Talk) (Triple tiger; links to Fujiwara & Kujo clans)
 * 1 May 2003 User:Flunkie (Talk | contribs) (short info about fourth Kamkura shogun Yoritsune)

From User talk:LordAmeth: User Ooperhoofd and citations
User:Ooperhoofd has been adding his favorite retranslation of a retranslation of a retranslation to a bunch of articles, which in and of itself seems to be fine (since there seems to have never been any consensus on the issue), however he is then removing the "needs references/sources" tag, claiming that his favorite book equals a source/citation. My understanding of a source/citation is that it is the book(s) that were actually used in the writing of the article, or at the very least back up what is written. I seriously doubt his favorite book fits this, considering he is retroactively putting his favorite book in all these articles. I think he should be required to re-add the tags he has removed, since I went through all of the trouble in the first place. I would have posted this to the military history japan page, but I can't seem to find it. Has it ever been decided if he is simply spamming the articles or not? I have to wonder what, if anything his favorite book has to do with most of the articles it is being added to. I suspect he is planning on translating this book, and so he wants to get as much preparatory marketing as possible. Regardless, even if it is fine for him to put this book as a "further reading" (even if there is nothing further on the subject in his favorite book), it does not constitute a source, so I think he should re-add the "needs sources" tags in all of the articles he has removed them from. If you want to post this to the military history japan page, feel free. Like I said, for some reason I'm having trouble finding it. Cheers! --Kuuzo 00:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this. It's really a shame because he does seem to be a knowledgeable, dedicated, and helpful editor. He's been doing some fine work on the Japanese era name chronology the last week or so. But he does seem awfully dense about this particular issue. I see you've already mentioned this issue on his talk page. What do you think the next step ought to be? Do you think it would be helpful to post it to WP:JPMIL or Japan-related topics notice board? LordAmeth 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know - my main gripe is that he's removing the "needs citation" tags when he puts his favorite book up, when we all know that his favorite book is not where the articles came from, and in most cases probably doesn't have much to do with the articles they are added to. I think it should go to the notice board that he puts his favorite book into every article to promote it for one reason or another, and that he is falsely citing it as a source, or in most cases THE source, when it wasn't even used at all to write the articles he cites it in. --Kuuzo 01:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand his response, and I'm not sure he understands what we're saying, but it seems that he intends to keep removing the "needs sources" tags when he puts in his favorite books. I do find it obnoxious that he puts the non-english book citation in every article he can find, even when it seems that it may not be directly applicable, but until someone officially rules one way or the other on that, it doesn't matter. I just don't think "further reading" should be considered a source, particularly when it is being retroactively added to articles that he otherwise doesn't add any more info into to make the book a true source. I have posted my questions here: Wikipedia_talk:Japan-related_topics_notice_board, so feel free to drop an opinion there. Thanks! --Kuuzo 09:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize that I have not been particularly active (nor responsive) the last few days. I'm keeping it in mind, and when I get a chance to sit down and really deal with this in earnest, I shall. Thanks again. LordAmeth 16:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)