User talk:Hamiltonstone/Archive 3

Choral symphony
Thanks for the recommdations for potential copyeditors for this article. Unfortunately, things have not worked out as I had hoped. User:Yllosubmarine simply checked for em dashes and User:Shoemaker's Holiday seems to have disappeared. I have given up going on to FA review with this article for the time being, since a thorough copyediting by a third party does not seem to be in the offing. Jonyungk (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for following through on your promise. I'd been at a loss about what to do about the structure of the piece, but your changes and suggestions have been absolutely on target. Thanks again. Whatever other suggestions you have, go right ahead and make&mdash;I'm open. Jonyungk (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Symphonic Poems (Liszt)
This just passed through GA review a little too easily, in my mind, but I was still thinking of submitting it for FA review. If you have the time, could you please take a look at it and pass along any suggestions? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Whenever you have a chance, could you please take a look at this. I've made a number of changes per peer review but would still appreciate a second set of eyes on it. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Complaint
Could you stop vandalism, please? I don't like other users to delete important information that I have compiled. Thanks! 134.245.108.65 (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have commented on your ISP talk page, but will respond here. What I have done is not vandalism. There are editors (including myself) working on this page who are trying to improve the article - including removing long, duplicative, unnecessary and/or unreferenced material in this particular article. Some of what you are adding may be of interest, but at this stage, it us debatable whether it adds enough in value to be worth making this long and large file-size article. It might be better to add commentary to the interesting interpretive maps, or text to the analysis section. I particularly think there is no justification for having tables of both the closest results and the biggest majorities, particularly when we have a massive table containing the state-by-state results. What do you think? hamiltonstone (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all I wanna thank you for talking to me in an appropriate language as opposed to certain other users. But, could you answer me two questions, please?
 * 1.) Why is it important to know the closest states, and the biggest majorities however not?
 * 2.) Why are there the closest states listed, although there is already a "massive table", which doesn't include any percents, by the way?
 * 3.) Why did FOX and CNN show the best results on election night? Why did we have to grade the results at school and university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.108.65 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points. I'll respond here, and flag at your talk page.
 * I am actually in favour of not having separate tables for either closest states or biggest majorities, if there is a main table of results (particulary, as in the 2008 article, where there is also a range of interpretive maps available as well). However, your observation about the lack of percentages in the main table is a good one. My preferred solution, in terms of space, would be to include those percentages in the main table, do away with the separate little tables altogether, and then add some commentary in the analysis section.
 * Other users have raised some valid points making judgements about what is notable data worth including. Arguably, in an electoral college or first-past-the-post voting system, biggest majorities are not particularly important. My view is that they should be mentioned only if reliable source references draw attention to them, for example by way of underlining the geography or demography of a candidate's support base. Which brings me another point:
 * A range of the material included in this and other election result articles lacks citations for the source(s) of the results data. This has recently turned out to be an issue in one case where an editor has indicated that the numbers in different sources are not the same. I would be happier with a lot of the material in Presidential electoin 2008 and others if the tables etc were footnoted so we knew where the data came from. I woudl continue to have an issue with this, for example, if I were to be conducting a GA Review again for one of these sorts of articles.
 * I'm afraid I didn't understand your last point about FOX and CNN etc. I don't know where people are getting some of the figures for the article (see my previous point), but they should be being sourced, if at all possible, straight from publications of the authority(ies) administering the election.
 * Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good articles/recent
Hey. I would just to update you on some developments with the WP:Good articles/recent page. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems, but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ministerial Code
Thanks for the beginning of your review. I've contributed some comments at the review page, which I hope will be helpful! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 07:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
They couldn't at all, although afterwards there still wasn't an application system. Prior to the Act, appointment was based on a little set of cards the Lord Chancellor would collect on prospective judges, and he would appoint someone based on talking to other senior judges. The cards were started and added to based on the interactions between the senior judiciary and the potential judge in the senior courts. Since the solicitors couldn't work in any of the senior courts, they were by convention completely ruled out. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Featured article candidates
Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing nominations at Featured article candidates. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! You may already be familiar with the FAC criteria by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the Featured article criteria. Also, the following dispatches are useful for reviewing nominations:


 * Reviewers achieving excellence
 * Reviewing images (free images / non-free images)
 * Reliable sources in content review processes

The best way to learn is by doing, but here is a quick reference of the things to check for each nomination you review:

Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at FAC, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at FAC. Now get to reviewing some noms! Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We are always happy to see new reviewers. I hope you like the atmosphere and we see more of you :) Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Donald Duck talk
I have added a supporting reference plus videos showing how Tony Anselmo who took over from Clarence Nash makes the voice. Tony Anselmo's face is also very clearly making the sound with a buccal "bubble" on side of his face see at 1.00 here (Part 2/2). He also particularly notes the difficulty of making nasal speech sounds like "r" that is characteristic of buccal speech see Weinberg B, Westerhouse J. (1971). A study of buccal speech. J Speech Hear Res. 14(3):652-8. PMID 5163900 that finds nasal sounds to be the least intelligible.--LittleHow (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I misunderstood you. I have put the citations you require.--LittleHow (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had this ref which provides an online link to an abstract on the acoustical properties of alaryngeal speech which states it studies "two other types of alaryngeal speech—buccal and pharyngeal speech". Weinberg B,(1972). Acoustical Properties of Alaryngeal Speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 52,(1A) 158 --LittleHow (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA sweeps - possible volunteer
That's some nicely done GA reviews. So follow the Sweeps process and use this page to keep track of articles. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much for helping Poyt448 out with the DYK submission for Thorny Yellowwood. It really is not easy to learn how to do this properly, especially when you are so new to Wikipedia. But Poyt448 has been writing quite a lot of very promising new articles on rainforest trees in NSW with good photos he takes, and I am happy that this one looks as though it will become his first DYK. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And so much thanks to Invertzoo for her wonderful assistance. She has been outstanding in her support. Incidentally, it does say on the Rutaceae page in the first sentence, that this is known as the Rue or Citrus family.

i.e.

Rutaceae, commonly known as the rue or citrus family, is a family of plants, usually placed in the order Sapindales.

So, you may wish to restore the citrus hook. However, I'm very happy as it stands.

kind wishes, Pete Poyt448 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hamiltonstone,

My most recent DYK nomination has languished for nearly a week, it's been commented on only twice. And I instantly addressed the issues raised. Is it possible you could assist in finalising this nomination? Mount Banda Banda. thank you, Poyt448 (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hamiltonstone,

Your alternative hook is excellent, and I'd be happy to go with that. Kind regards and thanks. Poyt448 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pakenham windmill
I've answered your query on the talk page. The source quoted as a ref (Dolman) states that there were three pairs of stones. Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I've added some more info. but am unsure if it's enough. Can you tell me how many more words I need to add now please? Thanks, sorry for the hassle! Dotty•• | &#9742; 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Hey I replied here, I'm pretty sure I fixed your concerns.-- Giants27 (  t  |  c  |  r  |  s  ) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied again and no worries, if one person is confused probably a lot of people would be.-- Giants27 (  t  |  c  |  r  |  s  ) 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK images
DYK images should be protected while on the Main Page. Protection is quite complicated (I should make a flowchart sometime). Long story short, it's the admins' job to make sure it's done correctly, and regular users can't do much except alert admins. If the image is on English Wikipedia (not Commons), you can add a m-protected template to let others know the image will be protected because it's on the Main Page. When the time comes, the image will be protected automatically by the cascading protection of the Main Page. If the image is hosted on Commons, administrators have to do the work. The image either needs to be a) temporarily uploaded to English Wikipedia and tagged with c-uploaded (note the admin does not have to manually protect the image, the cascading protection will do it) or b) protected at Commons by a Commons admin. Hope this helps (and isn't too confusing), Shubinator (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while autoconfirmed users can upload files, only admins can do an upload of a file to English Wikipedia to the same filename as an existing Commons file. Shubinator (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked over what you did to create prep area 1. Everything looked good to me! You did a good job of spreading around the hooks, with no run of consecutive hooks on the same topic/country. I approved it and moved it to the queues. I am one of the few Commons admins and I try to check the images waiting in the queues so I can protect them on Commons. Good job with preparing the queue! Thanks for your help.  Royal broil  03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Hamiltonstone, I have not been active in DYK for a few months due to commitments elsewhere, but you are right in filling up extras if hooks are short. I have no problem with less US hooks if that is what is available. IIRC that was because there were so many US hooks to choose from we were ensuring that they were spread evenly and not ending up with all US in one go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
Huh? Since when is the fact that another article at DYK mentioned something grounds for disqualification? – iride  scent  14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Carucage
Okay, took care of most of this. Going to be a bit on the feudal relief redlink, I'm taking a break to eat lunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lauritz Sand
In this edit, it would appear there was agreement to use one of the alt versions, but did you notice you promoted the "hardest tortured person" version, which is now in Queue 6? Art LaPella (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done; here's my diff. Art LaPella (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Lover
I don't know how to look at the history for a DYK entry. Did you submit or approve the DYK for this article that was posted today? Unfortunately, the information that was taken from the article and used in the DKY was wrong. The 1958 film The Quiet American was filmed in Saigon (see ), so The Lover definitely wasn't the first Western film made in Vietnam. LargoLarry (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The DYK is factually correct. See Talk:The Lover (film). Vietnam being the reunified Vietnam The Quiet American was filmed in South Vietnam, not just Vietnam. It is a semantic difference only, and the article has been clarified. If you read the rest of the thread, you'll likely see the real motivation behind this silly attempt at discrediting the DYK. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * These things happen. The article had a reliable source for its claim, and the claim is, as Collectonian has argued, correct, though benefitting from a clarification for readers - which has been undertaken. I'm happy with all that. LargoLarry you raise a good question about looking at the history of DYK entries. Because it is such a long and heavily edited page, the Template Talk seems to be a hard one to go looking for what happened when. I'm not familiar with search systems on WP, but here's what I did: I went to DYK Prep area 1, as I figured the article would have had to pass through one of the prep areas on its way to the main page. I used this this search engine to look for "The Lover" in its version history. Once I found the earliest occurrence of it at prep area 1, i went back to the T:DYK and went to the history tab, and looked around that time for for a version of the T:DYK that showed The Lover being transferred to the prep area. That took me to this version, which shows I cleared it for DYK. But I don't know whether any of that is what you wanted to know :-) cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The DYK is not "factually correct". On the discussion page for the article at The Lover, Collectonian claimed it's a matter of "semantics", which it isn't. There is a huge difference between saying a film was the first one ever made in Vietnam and the first one made there after the reunification of the country. Collectonian claims anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of Vietnam would know what she meant. Since when is someone required to know the history of a related subject in order to fully understand the article he's reading? Aren't the facts in any given article supposed to be accurate instead of saying "Well you should already know this in order to understand that"? LargoLarry (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are the one arguing that South Vietnam is the same as Vietnam, when in fact, they are not. They have separate articles for a reason. And considering your continued hostile remarks on the article talk page, I seriously doubt you'd have brought up this issue if the DYK had been done by anyone else other than me. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, when did I ever say South Vietnam is the same as Vietnam? This is another example of how you twist everything. And since I don't know how to look at the history for a DYK entry, how was I supposed to know you were the one who nominated the article for DYK? I didn't even know the DYK existed until I saw the discussion about the inaccuracy in it someone else started on the talk page for the article!!! LargoLarry (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. A few things. First, the way the article was written was based on a reliable source, and if a reliable source were to get something wrong (though this case is not quite in that category), that is not any editor's fault, and we should not blame any editors. Second, LargoLarry, when this issue was raised, Collectonian's first reaction was "Reliable sources say this was the first Western film filmed. The only issue is whether they meant post-reunification or not. I have found another reliable source that clarifies that yes, that is what they meant and am adding it now." It was a sound, constructive response and addition to the article. She did exactly the right thing. So: third, brand new articles are always open to improvement. We are all here to improve WP, and The Lover (film) gained as a result of someone picking up an issue re what was meant by "Vietnam", so let's all just be pleased about that. Yes, I think Collectonian got a bit snaky with LargoLarry here, but then again, the preceding interchange showed that there had definitely been provocation. Fourth,... what is it with you two, anyway? Do you have some real life conflict going? Largo has a couple hundred edits and has been around for about two months; Collectonian has 70000 edits and has been here four years. You seem completely different Wikipeople, doin' different stuff. Why the sudden faceoff? And fifth, take this discussion to the article talk page (but only if you are going to be civil about it) and off my talk page please. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wish I knew what his issue with me was. As you noted, he has only a few edits and as far as I know, I've never had anything to do with him until the issues at The Lover. I tried being patient, but his claiming I have no right to edit or be a project coordinator over, what to me is really a non-issue, has worn it a bit thin. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hamilstone, I contacted you simply because I was concerned about the inaccuracy of the DYK. It was Collectonian who decided to drag the discussion that started on the article talk page here, which was inappropriate. I apologize for my part in it. However, while the article was corrected to show the film was the first one made in Vietnam after the reunification of the country, the DYK still claims it was the first one ever made in Vietnam. I was just hoping to have the DYK statement clarified the way it was in the article, that's all. Thank you. LargoLarry (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1
Hello! After a lengthy peer review, I have finally nominated H.M.S. Pinafore for Featured Article. I think you will be pleased with the improvements to the article since you last saw it. In any case, please comment or vote at the FAC. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in Estonia
Perhaps you could copy your comment to article's talk page, as the DYK's page will be reset soon, and is probably not read by most article's editors anyway? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ram Narayan peer review
Hi! I started a peer review for Ram Narayan. You looked at the GA nomination, perhaps you want to take a look here too? Thanks :) Hekerui (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Francis Laws
FYI: I quickly scanned the article and noted that Laws had been honored with military decorations. This qualifies him as "notable" by Wikipedia standards, and thus not a candidate for deletion. Georgejdorner (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure why you left this messge on my page today - I have a very vague memory of visiting Laws page many moons ago, and certainly when I did I would have thought that it is not in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Also, notability has to be estbalished through the use of reliable sources, rather than directly by editors, and that has to be done without engaging in original research. I can see a lot of problems with the Adrian Francis Laws page, perhaps bad enough to warrant considering deletion, but at this stage probably not. Still, I'm not sure why you left a message on my page?? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I left the message as a courtesy to you, because I left the same message on Laws' talk page. Let's just say, I did not want to be perceived as "talking behind your back."

And, of course, the award of military decoration has to come from reliable sources. In this case, it came from an Air Ministry Bulletin.

However, once that is established, I believe that according to Notability (people) he is notable, based on the fact that "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them."

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, okay. That's considerate of you, but something wierd seems to be going on here. When I looked at the edit histories of both the article and the article talk page, I could find no contributions by either myself or by you. What am I missing here?? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I was confused, and passed the confusion on to you.

Upon checking my computer's history, I realize the original comment about Laws was on Canglesea's talk page, and not on the Laws talk page.

A case of too much Wikipedia, too late at night, renders the thinking process mushy.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Symphonic Poems (Liszt)&mdash;Help!
Hi, I submitted this article to FAC after going through peer review and am already getting flak about not having it copyedited thoroughly before submission. I agree that's entirely my fault, but could you help me out by looking through the article? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's had some copyediting since I last contacted you&mdash;not "much" as stated below, but some&mdash;but could still use your eyes on it, if for no other reason than for this comment from FAC:
 * Comments: I like the Classics, but I am not a music buff, and hence plead a near ignorance of the terms used in the studies of music. I had prepared a commentary based on the 01:31, 17 June 2009 version, but was kept getting held up by other things... (sorry).  Much copyediting had been done since and many issues I had picked had been resolved, but I think there are some jargon that are still over the head for one as ignorant as me in musicology: "logic of symphonic thought in breadth and scope, if not in actual mechanics", "combine the elements of overture and symphony with descriptive elements to produce single-movement works that approach symphonic first movements in form and scale yet did not strictly obey Classical forms", are examples of what my head cannot seem to comprehend.  I had to reach for the dictionary to understand "movements" as "a principal self-contained section of a large-scale work, such as a symphony".
 * I've done some rewriting to try to make the passages in question more non-musician-friendly, but I'm open to whatever suggestions you may have. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all your help. Please let me know when I can return the favor. Jonyungk (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I found the in-line cites for your intro&mdash;really nice work you did. :-) Jonyungk (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

14A improvements
I've provided the requested sourcing. Please look at Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and let me know if I formally request reassessment. SMP0328. (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kintore
Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kintore,_Northern_Territory

First could not figure out how to add these comments to the Kintore page you edited.

Not at all sure why you removed what I added ?

The links were not so easy to find for historical information which seems of interest to others at Kintore and elsewhere with slight interest to learn a little of the community.

Links hopefully raise interest enough to go searching for more ;-)

Certainly be nice to see listed other works mentioning Kintore amd or Pintupi with links.

Why did you removed link to Walungurru Council ? It is a significant part of Kintore NT history. Until it disappears it does provide other information about the community. . The MacDonnell Shire Council is our new local government council, hopefully it will provide better information soon.

IMHO such links appropriate so people can learn something, then set off to learn more.

Is Wik not a good starting place to set out amd learn more ?

So appreciate if you can clarify why you removed them.

Pwparker (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Pwparker

RE: DYK noms
Hi, thanks for replying. You have not disappointed me. You were raising a genuine issue in good faith and you did not attack me or anything so that's not a problem. When I reread the comments I realised that they weren't so negative after all. My name was mentioned and Ottava left this to me ("Note - this is per the Wikipedia talk:DYK discussion about a series of bad articles put forth by you") which was a bit unhelpful as it made it look like you were all frowning on me and had all decided to nominate them for deletion last week without even informing me until this week. The matter has since got all the more confusing and I can't work it out. But I don't really blame you, you were trying to help and Ottava almost appears to have been encouraging deletion just for the sake of deletion in a situation where deletion was not even an issue at first and where nobody has actually agreed with him. I'm reading it now and it looks completely different to my first impression of it. But I've raised all this at the deletion discussion, athough it appears to just be me and Ottava exchanging comments with nothing getting anywhere. Anyway the main thing is I don't blame you, I'm sure you mean well, thanks for any help you've given me and keep up the good work. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  02:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Swaminarayan GA
Hi, v hv removed the long Temples/Ascetics sections and added a para on each. As for the beliefs, could you pl. answer Redtigers query? The only other thing I saw pending was the death line. Pl. state any further issues you may c. Thanks, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 09:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response - been much quicker than other GA reviewers I must say. No prob - Wikiproject Swaminarayan is my priority on wiki - I do do other articles as well - but its Swaminarayan related tht takes up most of my time here. There are some other guys tht r involved as well - so dont worry - vl c this thru however long it takes. World has been working on the copy-edits last nite. I was juz taking an off chance tht ther wer no more issues! And lastly - no I dont no of the cite add-on tool! tc, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 12:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)