User talk:Jackyd101/Archive 3

Le Paradis massacre
Firstly, thanks very much for your detailed GA review, you gave me points that are clear for me to work on, which is much appreciated. I have worked my way through nearly all of the points. However, I do have one or two queries about what you raised.

You said 'please give rationales for their reliability here if you can', how would I do that? Sorry, this is my first article, so this is all new to me.

Also, do you have any recommendations about where to go for copy-editing? The League of Copyeditors seems inactive, and I want to hit the seven day period.

~Regards,

Mattyness (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

GA: Le Paradis massacre
Myself, and other editors have worked on the article for the past week, and I feel that it is not much improved. All but one minor issue (see talk page) that was raised has been done. So would you please do the copyedit, and another review? Much appreciated, Mattyness (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your copyedit and second review, I just got back from my local library so I am citing everything thoroughly, and I will work on the other issues raised. Mattyness (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As an update, I have done all but one of the points raised to the best of my ability. Regards, Mattyness (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your work, much appreciated. Mattyness (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Albuera for FAC
Woohoo - first on a blank page (ooh, that takes me back to 6th form, when it was "first in the middle" for leaving books)...

Anyway, I've already contacted about this, but I was wondering on your opinions too on the chance of Battle of Albuera getting to FA. I have personal concerns about it, thinking that Background and Prelude to battle are too long (caused by the lack of 1st and 2nd Badajoz siege articles), and that's the only reason I haven't taken the article to FAC yet. At the moment, I'm suffering from writer's block, and can't get the enthusiasm together to write those missing articles and thus reduce some of the Albuera prose...but, I'm tempted to take Albuera to FAC anyway. Hence, looking for your opinion - you have lots of experience on FAs, so do you think Albuera is ready for FAC now?

Thanks in advance. Carre (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It passed! Thanks for the help with the tweaks, GA review, and all those bio articles to fill the redlinks in :) Carre (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Elmer Gedeon
Elmer Gedeon GAC is ready for your review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Come have a look.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

GA assessment of John Balchen
I've placed the nomination on hold pending resolution of concerns indicated on the article's talk page. If the concerns can be addressed promptly (7 days), the article will pass (otherwise, the nomination will fail with no further notice). Please let me know if assistance or elaboration is needed. Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ talk 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Le Paradis massacre reverts
While I understand that you were asked for peer review on the article I also commented on specific problems and concerns I had with the article on the talk page and then did my best to improve the article summary according to the MOS guidelines and I notified the editor involved. After you commented on the article again ALL of what I contributed was removed and the article summary is almost the same as it was before with the exact same problems. Perhaps in the future you would do other editors in the same situation the courtesy of at least replying in the section where the concerns were raised or notify them on their talk pages. Sorry, forgot what day it was. Please forgive me for posting tired.Awotter (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ireland national football team (IFA)
The above article which has many links to British Home Championship and other related articles who contributed to has been nominted for deletion. Djln--Djln (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ship of the line Mont Blanc
Hello,

I've looked into my sources, and it seems that the only ship in the French Navy (and a fortiori the only capital ship) to have born the name Mont Blanc until 1870 was Mont Blanc (ex-Pyrrhus). During the "Glorious First of June", she was named Trente et un mai.

This is quite interesting, do we have a track of where the mention of a Mont Blanc at the "Glorious First of June" comes from ?

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Matthews
Thank you for the review! I have addressed all of your concerns on the article's talk page (I hope!). Please let me know if there's anything you'd like me to work on. Cheers, CP 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebellion of Cao Qin
Thanks! I'm glad you like the article. Unfortunately, I can't find any other available journal articles online that cover this event. Sad.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Minoru Yasui
Thanks for reviewing the article, I was able to find a picture. I re-worded the sentence you were concerned with, if you could take a look and let me know if it is now clear what was happening. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic campaign of May 1794
I have put the article on hold and left notes on the talk page. I believe the article could use a copyedit from the league of copyeditors.--The Dominator (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re prose & atlantic campaign articles
Hi Jacky,

I'd be happy to have a look, but won't be able to probably until Sunday (intend to spend tomorrow watching rugby ;) ). I'd suggest giving  a ping too, if you haven't already - he's did the copy-editing on two of my three FAs, and I think he's active again now after being quiet for a few weeks.

Cheers Carre (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problems Jacky, I'll be happy to. As Carre noticed, I took most of January off (thought I'd have an extended Christmas break!). Back now though ;) EyeSerene TALK 09:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll get to it asap - my time is limited at the weekend, but I should be able to make a start on Monday. Just to clarify, are you saying you do not want a copyedit, just a 'review'? (either one is fine with me) EyeSerene TALK 12:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

11th New York
I would appreciate an additional seven days. My real life has picked up a bit and I don't have time right now to work on this. Thanks, Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing this article. I appreciate you passing the GA nom. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As a follow up regarding your concern with some of the sources used in this article, besides the about.com link and the http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/firezou/ link, so you think the other websites linked in the Notes section will be an issue when I nominate this article for FA? I believe all of my books referenced will pass muster. I am hoping to finish up some of your comments including post-war honors and lineage and then proceed from there. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A map for you
Turns out making two lines of ships and labeling them is not so hard after all ;-) . I read the article and used lines and arrows to show the initial ships that either breached the line or became entangled. Please let me know any errors or corrections or simple additions. Crosses on ships are used for admirals on board - should I note this on the map?Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it and that it is useful for the article - thanks for all of your work here! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful news (but not a surprise)! Congratulations, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just adding my congrats on the promotion of a fine article. --FactotEm (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD
Congratulations on your recent WP:FL promotion. You may be interested in participating the the selection of lists of the day and a list of the month for March or nominating lists for April.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
Yet another one :) Atlantic Campaign next, eh?  Carré (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and from me too. It's a gripping bit of history, and I really enjoyed working on it. Nice job! EyeSerene TALK 14:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Atlantic campaign indeed. See you there.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion for GA Assessment of Battle of Kleidion
I have delivered a Second Opinion for the GAC Battle of Kleidion and have left notes on its talk page. In my view, the article can be placed on hold for a few minor corrections. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- jackturner3 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

template:LondonGazette
Jsut a couple of notes on the usage of this template. For the page number, you need to use the "real" page number found in the &pgn parameter of the url (and printed on the page), not the one used in the navigation page, which simply numbers the first page of each issue as 1. Also, you only need to set supp=yes in the template if in the url you have &type=ArchivedSupplementPage - even if the front page says it's a supplement - I don't think they always noted this down properly when they were scanning them in. I noticed the problems in Eliab Harvey, I don't know if you've used the template in other articles. David Underdown (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, duly noted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tory Island
If only I'd had the sense to read the Discussion page before making a series of changes to Action of 12 October 1798! Outstanding work, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shem1805 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps
After a quick check with the articles you listed/kept/delisted, I would like to welcome you to the Sweeps team. I saw that your main interest is in military. In the Sweep list#War and military, there's "Armies, military unites and legal issues" that is not taken by anyone yet so you can start on this category of GAs. And if you do finish early, you can take AshLin's        "Weapons and military equipment" subcategory because he's on temporary leave for almost half a year. If you got loss during the process, just let me know and I'll help you out. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic campaign of May 1794
OK, copyedit finally finished. Sorry it's taken so long - I've been snowed under recently at work! Anyhow, I think things are ready for proofread etc, and all the best with FA (edit: I meant FT of course :$ ). EyeSerene TALK 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No probs Jacky, you're welcome - and don't hesitate to throw other articles of yours my way if you think I can help out.
 * Regarding your prose (which is actually pretty good BTW), the main things that regularly cropped up during the ce were:
 * word repetition (ie using the same adjective more than once within a few sentences of each other)
 * redundancies (the general rule here is: if a word or phrase can be cut without altering the meaning of the text, then cut it). For example, this came up a lot with "British..." and "French..." - generally if identifying something (ie a ship or fleet) is obvious from the context, there's no need to be quite so explicit.
 * transitional phrases or words halfway into a sentence (such as "The British fleet, however, was..."). I find it's generally best to either avoid these altogether, or if absolutely necessary, to put them at the start of the sentence where they impede the flow less.
 * It may seem like there were some fairly big changes, but they mostly all boil down to one of the above three - and most likely the second, which can sometimes involve reworking a few sentences to achieve conciseness. My top tip (!) is, as far as possible, to copyedit in the context of the surrounding text, otherwise the article ends up coming over as fragmented. Make a change, re-read the entire surrounding paragraph or section, and if it sounds 'wrong', go back and reword. I also find reading the article out loud as though I was reading to an audience helps, especially with the prose flow. If it sounds awkward, or you have to re-read a sentence to parse it properly, it needs fixing.
 * Hope this helps! I've enjoyed working with you again, and look forward to more in the future. All the best, EyeSerene TALK 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Cooke (Royal Navy officer)
The article John Cooke (Royal Navy officer) you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:John Cooke (Royal Navy officer) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Juliancolton The storm still blows...  18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) And yea, the writing is good, but if you get a chance, a copyedit wouldn't hurt. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Warren
Another editor has added the  template to the article Benjamin Warren, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA Sweeps referencing
Remember that this is GA, not FA. While we strive for best possible, sometimes we have to make reasonable adjustments. If it's a controverisal article, as long as it's not about a living person, you don't need one citation per paragraph. It's very often that a reference previously cited already covered the points later on, but just that nobody put them up.

Regarding citing books without page numbers, it's ok. I let that happen all the time, most noticeably in Winston Churchill. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Atlantic campaign of May 1794
Please accept my commiserations over the nomination's outcome. For what it's worth, I feel the article was treated rather unfairly, and your good-faith attempts to compromise were handled the same way. However, nil carborundum - you're an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia, and one of the best editors it's been my pleasure to work with. All the best, EyeSerene TALK 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll concur with Eye here; PMA's response to your olive branch was out of order, in my opinion.  Eye may remember his comments at my first FAC, the Barrosa one, and like you I was reluctant to return to that forum.  Don't keep away though – your articles are good, and a benefit to WP, and it's certainly not worth getting dispirited over such a trivial matter. Carré (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Buckton Castle
Thanks for the review, I was expecting it to take a lot longer with the backlog at GAN. I'm letting you know that I've addressed the issues you raised - or at least tried to. Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The President (novel)
Hi Jacky! As part of the FA-Team, we've been working with an undergraduate class on a Wikipedia-based assignment; to improve the standard of Latin-American literature articles. The President (novel) is now ready for GA review, and as an experienced and active reviewer I was wondering if you wouldn't mind doing the honours? It's only been listed at WP:GAN (under WP:GAN) for a few days, but the class is working to a deadline and, although it's slightly cheeky, we'd like to shortcut the normal delay if possible. If you'd rather not, that's fine - Carre is next on my list, so I'll impose on him instead! All the best, EyeSerene talk 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that Jacky, it's much appreciated! The WP:MMM editors are aiming for eventual featured status for as many articles as possible from their list, and this is the first to be formally assessed. I'm involved with the article in semi-advisory role, so I'll let them respond to the Hold in the first instance. Once again, thank you! EyeSerene talk 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent review BTW, and no doubt I'll be knocking Carre's door too at some stage ;) EyeSerene talk 14:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much Jacky! Can't say I'm looking forward quite so much to FA, but we'll see how things go... All the best, EyeSerene talk 10:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Johnston de Peyster
Hey, thanks so much for the review. I'll take care of that today. Mrprada911 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Johnston de Peyster
I have made the corrections to Johnston de Peyster. Please have a look at let me know what your thoughts are, and if any further adjustments are needed.

If possible, would you also review Gregory R. Ball? The article is significantly longer then the de Peyster piece, so it would be helpful to have your detailed feedback now so I may have more time to make the proper modifications to have it promoted. Thanks. Mrprada911 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Replace this image
The reason why I removed these is twofold. Primarily, the image is generally meant to be put on BLPs as opposed to long-dead people. I believe we're trying to limit it to that since thos are the only ones where free images could be found feasibly. If we find an image of the people on the bios you wrote it's going to be free, so the tag is almost redundant. Also, I actually think the infobox looks better without them, as well as the article. I'd rather not have something detract from what are pretty nice articles. Wizardman 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Armia Krajowa
I have addressed most of your comments that I could. If you could help with copyediting the prose, it would be much appreciated. I would like to see this article FACed one day soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...
Do you feel like handling the GA nom for 1973 Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape? Saves me waiting an eternity. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  09:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No major rush, it's just I know sometimes it gets that backlogged it can be over a month. Thanks. One Night In Hackney  303  10:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I was self-reverting anyway! One Night In Hackney  303  18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn
She is probably close to GA. Give me some feed back. -- Secisek (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This one is easy
I have one more favor to ask. Could you review Edmund the Martyr? It was listed as GA, but a content dispute errupted last January when I was on a wikibreak and I found it delisted when I got back. It has been calm now for over two months. It should be a very simple review - I promise I wont strike through your comments ;-) Thank you so much for helping us improve the Anne Boleyn and the Henry Martyn articles. Feel free to contact me about anything you may need help with in the future! -- Secisek (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Which category? Religious. If he were not a saint, all they would know for certain about him is that he minted some coins. This is a pretty thin historical place and time. Thanks again. -- Secisek (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The SPA EdChampion that has attacked the article since last August returned right after the nom, so I withdrew the nomination. I'd really like to find out who he is a sock puppet of and get him banned. -- Secisek (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr
I you dare want to arbitrate, please do! I've been labeled as troublesome at Edmund the Martyr. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Romulus Augustus
Made changes per your request.--Idols of Mud (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

GA-assessment of Greg Ball
Jacky,

I've made the changes/suggestions that you proposed. Please let me know if I should do anything further. Thanks. Mrprada911 (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tory Island Map
I have promised to make another map first, but then I can work on yours - do you want the same color scheme as the locator map I made for the Glorious First? Also do you want all of Ireland shown, or just the corner where the battle took place? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The map is up - please let me know if you need any changes or tweaks - I took the liberty of putting it into the article. Hope that was OK, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I can try another map - it may take me a while as I have gotten pretty busy lately, but just let me know when you need it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

EdChampion
His first response has already violated WP:CIVIL. What can I do? --Secisek (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
I'll take a look at Edward Rotheram. Will you review and offer suggestions for Siege of Damascus? -- Secisek (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for your reference tags on Ramses II. Frankly, there is much of uncited info on this pharaoh. The article itself is very good, but highly bloated at 58 KB. But do you issue warnings or ban users like this one specific user He just tried to vandalise the article on Ramesses II twice in 1 week! See here: and his talk page shows a history of persistent vandalism and bans. The anonymous IPs are the worst. I am not an Admin regrettably. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bompart‎ & Savary‎
Done at last. But this is still dreadfully short, and lack illustrations. I wish engravings of the time were more available.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Armia Krajowa
In February you've reviewed and passed AK article. In recent days a content dispute is threatening to destabilize this article; your comments would be much appreciated here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Michael the Brave
I have taken it to fulfil your points on this article for it to achieve GA status. If you can do another quick check and if you are pleased, can you pass the article please? Thanks, Jh  fireboy  Talk  22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry but I fail to understand the purpose of the latest edit of the Michael article. The 1974 book co-authored by the Giurescus is a respectable reference, I never questioned that. What I said is that other users may question factual accuracy or NPOV if we do not provide more recent sources. There is a long history of controversy between Romanian and Hungarian historians over Michael's figure and one should stick to the latest sources which aim at a neutral point of view. While I may be wrong, I do believe that the legacy chapter is far two brief given the importance Romanian literature art and culture gives to this Prince which makes the article's coverage insufficient for a GA. I regret that I can't do the necessary edits but I really don't have the time and the topic is far from being fresh in my mind so I need to do some research before putting more info. Best regards, Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo FA nomination
Hi there. Just wanted to let you know, since you were our reviewer for GA status, that I've nominated Battle of Waterloo for FA. Featured_article_candidates. If you have some time to comment on the nomination, it would be great to see you there. -Kieran (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review of September 11, 2001 attacks
I believe the issues you listed have been satisfied. I'm working on the other comments, but I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for taking the time to review this article; we've been working hard to improve it the last few months. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's all done now. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)