User talk:Maias/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * No problem, let me know if there's anything you need help with. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

RAOU
It's very encouraging to see your persistent work on the raou article! Thank you! SatuSuro 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. It is one of my interests. Maias 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My late parents were part of the "old guard" of the RAOU in Perth, WA and good friends with Dom Serventy, and others whose names I could drop :) I think we had a full set of the emu at one stage as well :)  So it's good to see someone interested in history of orgs like this, as there too many articles with two lines of history and thats it ! SatuSuro 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: RIBO
I just happened to see on the recent changes that you seemed to be trying to move the page RIBO to... (I don't remember the title, but wherever it was). Only all that was on the page was the title. So I figured it had somehow messed up, so I deleted that page, and just did a move (using the move function) myself. I wasn't aware that you were trying to get the original page to redirect to a disambig page. When a page is moved, it automatically redirects to where it was moved to. I just checked, and it's now going to the dab page instead, so it looks like you've got it fixed up all right. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Your persistent hard work of creating an article of quality is appreciated, and If I was a barnstar person, I would have definitely sent you one for your diligence ! SatuSuro 06:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Much appreciated. Still needs additions and tidying and, no doubt, input of others to improve. Maias 07:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

AAB
Do you think the conflicts/controversies should even get a squeek in ?SatuSuro 02:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with such things going on the record. In fact I think it deirable in order to fill in the picture.  However, they do need sourcing. Maias 02:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There lies the rub. I have to date only anecdotal material from my end. I think I'll have to email you on that one. SatuSuro 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

ABC
Nice work. I've often heard the "Australian Bird Count" mentioned in association with the Atlas. If you know how this term is applied, you might like to include it. Snottygobble 12:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The ABC project dates from 1989. It was about bird movements rather than distribution.  It was separate from the Atlas project, though data from both the ABC and the Atlas databases have been analysed in conjunction.  As a separate project with its own database it probably deserves a separate article, which I hope I can get round to doing at some point. Maias 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, so I guess I need to fix The Banksia Atlas. Snottygobble 12:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would have been modeled on the Atlas project rather than the ABC. Maias 12:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Australian Painted Snipe
Hi. Can you provide a source for the split? Thanks SP-KP 18:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lane, B.A.; & Rogers, D.I. (2000). The Australian Painted Snipe, Rostratula (benghalensis) australis: an Endangered species?. Stilt 36: 26-34. The Stilt is the journal of the Australasian Wader Studies Group. Maias 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Atlas of Australian Birds
Hi - I notice that you've made a large contribution to this article. It's within a whisker of being passed as a Good article - the nomination will probably pass subject to answers to some comments which are on the Talk page. Don't know if you can help with this? SP-KP 18:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - I have responded to the comments on the Atlas talk page. Maias 01:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! on the GA - well done for all the hard work you put it! SatuSuro 11:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Credit also to all others who worked on it. Maias 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The LeSouef dynasty
Was sorted out out last night - what a relief, I hadnt realised their relationships, to complicate my editing patterns I have just started up the Australian maritime history project. sigh. SatuSuro 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were a few of them, involved in the RAOU and zoos in various capacities. Maias 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

BBO
BTW the Broome Bird observatory date has been just changed - I dont have anything at hand to check on that SatuSuro 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Had a look at BBO. The 1988 date is sort of OK - the observatory was operating from then and taking in visitors as well as hosting the NW Aus wader expeditions.  The formal opening (by some WA government minister - cannot remember who) took place in April? 1990.  I was there at the time. Maias 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Davies
Hi, I have fixed most of the Links to DAB pages created by your redirect of Stephen Davies to Davies. There was one link which I could not fix, not sure who the person is. DuncanHill 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for replying. Making Stephen Davies a dismabig page is a good idea. Yes, the economist is the one I couldn't make out, suspect he is a third person, but have no idea who!DuncanHill 14:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mt. and periods
Hi Maias, I noticed you renamed several articles such as Mt. Hood Scenic Byway, Mt. Hood Corridor, etc., with the summary that the period was extraneous. Would you possibly be from Australia or the UK? According to US spelling rules, the period is not extraneous—indeed it is required. See Chicago Manual of Style 15.32. Similar divergences exist (between British and USish) for Mr. vs. Mr, Mrs. vs. Mrs and so forth. It's been on my list to change those to unabbreviated Mount's. Perhaps now is a good time. —EncMstr 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think it should be Mt. Hood instead of Mt Hood. The period is not extraneous. See how other orginizations use the period: Timberline Lodge, Mt. Hood Chamber of Commerce, Mt. Hood Skibowl, Mt. Hood Summer Ski Camps.  I will go ahead and revert all of you changes.  Please inquire on the talk page about moving pages like this again.  Thanks, Cacophony 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. American English uses periods for virtually all single-word abbreviations (and most others as well, not to be confused with acronyms). Switching to British English (which I assume was your intent) is a violation of Manual of Style on two counts: "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect" (since Mt. Hood is in Oregon, American English should be used), and "Follow the dialect of the first contributor." -- NORTH talk 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for trouble caused. I will check the style manual diligently in future. Actually I agree with EncMstr that 'Mount' is preferable to either abbreviation. Maias 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No trouble caused. These things happen all the time.  I agree that in text, "Mount" is probably better in many cases, but in the title when Mount Hood is part of a longer title, it's fine to abbreviate it. -- NORTH talk 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear
In my youth it was known as cultural imperialism. I better check all my wesst coast tasmania entries after seein this!SatuSuro 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Durno Murray
On his AfD you say ..one could try Googling 'Durno Murray' rather than 'Mitchell Durno Murray'. 'Mitchell' is seldom, if ever, used.

This suggestst the page should be moved to Durno Murray IAW WP:MOS and WP:NAME - just like Bob Hawke etc.Garrie 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Garrie. Yep, that's probably a good idea.  I suppose I should wait until the AfD thing is decided though. Maias 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

With the same reasoning I am moving John Nelson Hobbs to John Hobbs. JNH will automatically become a redirect.
 * Good luck with these articles. I have created Category:John Hobbs Medal recipients. Hopefully we won't be in a position where articles for all of the recipients get deleted... If Emu is the national ornothological (?) mag than it's annual award recipient sounds like a notable ornothologist to me. Is there a wikiproject that could come to your aid on this (WP:Birds or something?)Garrie 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Garrie. For your info, the RAOU journal Emu would be the top ornithological journal in the Australasian region, and arguably in the Southern Hemisphere.  The Hobbs Medal and Serventy Medal awards are made by the RAOU (Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union), perhaps better known these days as Birds Australia.
 * With regard to the Birds wikiproject, it really seems concerned with the birds themselves only, rather than the people and organisations associated with studying them. This is probably fair enough; to take on all the human-associated stuff as well would multiply the size of the project.  I suppose Wikiproject Australia is a possibility... Maias 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Australian Bird Study Association
In it's current form you would need to argue a bit if it went to an AfD.

Is there some sort of independant coverage of the importance of this (person)(organisation)(thing)? that should be the first question to answer before starting an article.

If there is, get hold of it, and when you start the article - cite that independant coverage. That way you won't be scrambling to find / document the independant coverage during and AfD.

I'm not really sure, from the article, if they are as big as the local historical society - and individual historical societies aren't immediately notable - or as big as the NRMA. I am guessing they are in the middle.Garrie 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ABSA is certainly not as big as the RAOU, and it is more specialised, with a focus on fieldwork. Its journal Corella is a refereed scientific journal, but would not have the status of EMU.  It does organise regular scientific conferences, sometimes in conjunction with the RAOU.  It has a cultural niche within Australian ornithology for people who have a hands-on approach to it.  It has maybe a few hundred members.  It has had a close relationship with the Federal Government's Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme program, with ABSA being the only agent for restricted bird-catching items such as mist-nets.  Whether this makes them notable enough for Wikipedia I am not sure, and I am happy to go along with consensual decisions on the matter.  Maias 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me butting in - I believe that stubs of organisations - that are relative to ornithology and conservation groups are notable - regardless - and are quite different from local historical societies - as they in most cases are national - and have had significant positions and activities in the general history of australia and conservation issues as well. Excuse the butting in! SatuSuro 03:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

SatuSoro, thanks for butting in and dragging me back here... Maias, a lot of ppl don't watch every talk page they leave a comment on - me at least - it may pay you to drop even a "look here" on the other person's talk page if you're after continued discussion. But maybe you weren't ;).

Bugger consenus, it's your job to sway it to the belief that ABSA, RAOU, Corella and Emu are all notable, in the field of ornithology and conservation in Australia. Do yourself a favour: look at this article (which has and will continue to survive AfD's) and tell me: is Corella (I take it that's the journal of the smaller organisation) more or less notable than this fictional region of an appalling japanime series? It has maybe a few hundred members... vs It has over a hundred members with specialised knowledge of their field. They hold regular scientific conferences? Great, where does it publish the papers? Who writes them up? How do they get funding? Does anyone at CSIRO write about them in journals other than Corella and Emu? All of these things lend verifiability which lends credibility (here at least). If they have recieved government funding there must be sources available you can use to verify the existance and importance of these important organisations which contribute to conservation in Australia.

Being the only entity with mist-nets... that in itself is notable. But source the statement.

It's hard to have a large organisation of field-based individuals so if ABSA has over a hundred outdoors based conservation/wildlife management people then I'm sure it's more notable than a lot of what gets through here based not on notability - which is only ever reference to a subjective guideline - but verifiability, which is an official policy. So if ppl argue Delete, NN say, Keep, V. Garrie 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:N: "Notable here means 'worthy of being noted'[1][2] or 'attracting notice'[3]. It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not 'newsworthiness'."
 * /end rant, sorry Garrie 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not keeping the conversation here... I occasionaly have had nightmares about potentially very serious issues with the veirifiability/notability subjectivity of geographically challenged teenagers from the usa - so thanks for the tips !SatuSuro 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Garrie and SatuSuro for your comments. I agree with the points made about verifiability.  I can probably find some sources for some of the above statements, but it may take a little time.  I am not currently a member of ABSA and I find their website deficient in some ways.  Garrie, I note your quotes from WP:N, but it seems that some people really like the quick-and-dirty method of getting a google-hit-based ranking, which too often translates to fame or notoriety rather than what I would term 'deep' and long-term notability. Maias 04:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell me about it... being over 50 I am finding relating to anonymous teenagers on the net about what they consider to be notable from their googling to be quite melodramatic if not traumatic at times SatuSuro 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Still thinking about
I am seriosuly thinking about doing a list of directors of Perth Zoo - and trying for verifiable sources on them - but probably not what I mentioned offline - I think I might also be doing more on veterinary surgeons in australia - what do you think? have you found much on the AVA in your travels? SatuSuro 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea to me. I recently put together List of Sarawak Museum curators; it needed some digging around to find sources, but I found some interesting individuals among them.  No, I do not know much about the AVA, though I have had dealings with a couple of their members in the course of my previous work. Maias 05:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Will probably go very slow on this one - Have Bennetts (one of the vets who sorted the brookton and beverley sheep poisoning issues) in my sandbox page from the adb website, and a few other bits and pieces - will let you know if I get a breakthrough on either the vets or the zoo directors... SatuSuro 05:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Gordon Taylor
I noticed you had to change the link for Hawaii, and wondered why, because I'd seen it that way before. I went to an article about a Hawaiian county and found they got Hawaii by using Hawaii. The magic is "cut-n-paste". :-) I fixed the link in your article.  Shenme 05:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Maias, can you please take a look on it Ian King. It would be better if you improve it. I shall be grateful for that. I'm quite busy. I hope you'll respond with it.Thank you--NAHID 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Parrot
I was thinking of splitting out the section on feral parrots into its own article, and since you edited this section today I was wondering what you thought. Talk:Parrot. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dusky
Hi. The disambiguation page Dusky was marked for cleanup per MoS:DAB. I admit I have almost no knowledge of birds or zoology etc., but this page is rather difficult. Per WP:D and MoS:DAB, none of the animals on that dab page should be listed there, because not a single one of them is (to my knowledge) only known by the name "Dusky". I have checked and noticed there are pages like List of parrots. Could you please got to Talk:Dusky and state why this page should exist? The page may just lose its disambiguation status, or it might need to be moved to another name (i.e. "List of Dusky birds", I don't know) and be referred to from another (bird-related) index page, or may be Asked for Deletion. It's also orphaned at the moment, which doesn't help to certify its notability.
 * Okay, I've prod-ed it. Let's see where this goes... :-) – sgeureka t•c 15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Willie Wagtail
Hey Maias, thx for the advice but I was just being bold as advised! My references (an encyclopedia, a book on Aust. birds, and several dictionaries) all had willy as the spelling, and Googling "willy wagtail" turns up a hell of a lot more hits than "willie wagtail" - not authoritive I know, but you can see why I was confident that willy is correct. It's likely one of those terms that was in common verbal use long before anybody thought to write it down and standardise the spelling.

Anyway, if willie is now the consensus, I'll go with that. Thx for reverting everything.

If I may prevail upon you a little more, you may be able to answer/clarify two questions, one typographical and one taxonomic:

Should each and every occurrence of an animal's common name be capitalised (eg Willie Wagtail)? I ask this because it certainly isn't used uniformly througout Wikipedia, and it seems odd to me to write Domestic Cat instead of domestic cat.

Some of my references classify Rhipidura sp in their own family (Rhipiduridae) and Avibase lists three subspecies. Can you confirm whether this reflects current thinking? Thanks. Secret Squïrrel 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Secret Squïrrel. Your being bold is not a problem, and I can understand your reasoning.  I would agree that until the spelling became standardised there would have been various ways of writing the name, with and without hyphens etc.  Generally the spelling guide now used for Aussie bird names is "The Taxonomy and Species of Birds in Australia and its Territories" by Christidis & Boles, published 1994 as RAOU Monograph 2.  In answer to your questions:


 * Capitalisation: The convention for spelling the common names of birds on Wikipedia is to capitalise them when referring to particular species, while not capitalising groups of species, e.g. 'wagtails' is correct for, say, multispecies groups such as Rhipidura - so you would write "the Rhipidura wagtails". This does not necessarily apply to all animals - I believe that some other groups of animals, as well as plants, do not follow this convention.  For more info on this see WikiProject Birds.  If you have a particular interest in birds you might like to join the project.  I would agree with you about not captalising 'domestic cat'.


 * Taxonomy: I am using "The Directory of Australian Birds - Passerines" (1999) by Schodde and Mason as the best current published source. This does have three subspecies for R. leucophrys but keeps the genus in the Dicruridae.  However, it is possible that this has been superceded by later work.  I do note, however, that Vol.7 of the Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds (2006) keeps Rhipidura in the Dicruridae, though it is an encyclopedia rather than an original research paper.  If you have a good recent published source that raises Rhipidura to family level, feel free to use that when editing.  Cheers. Maias 04:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Maias. I don't have access to primary sources but had noted that HANZAB (and others) list Rhipidura in Dicruridae. However, I also noted that the Handbook of the Birds of the World, BirdLife International, Bird Families of the World, and Wikispecies all list Rhipiduridae as valid (presumably simply raising Rhipidurinae). I don't know which represents the more recent (or more widely accepted) view. This may be moot because I also note that Sibley-Ahlquist seems to do away with Dicruridae althogether and, as far as I can make out, lumps them in with Corvidae. I think taxonomy as a whole is in for a big shake-up as more mitochondrial studies are undertaken.


 * Thx also for your invite to join WikiProject Birds. I am interested in birds (partic. ratites, raptors and, oddly, anseriformes) and it intersects nicely with my major interest of dinosaurs, but I prob won't formally commit because I don't have the time to properly devote to this subject. I'm happy enough fiddling around the edges doing minor stuff and occasionally filling out articles that take my interest (so I'll list the 3 subsp for R. leucophrys). Thx and cheers. Secret Squïrrel 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maias, thanks for adding the sections and re-organising the text. The article had grown enough to warrant them but I hadn't managed to do it myself. It looks really good now. Secret Squïrrel 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Islomania
Thanks for your recent copy-edits to my rather sloppy additions to Islomania. PiCo 06:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Peregrine falcon wins
Shyamal 10:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Birds Australia Southern NSW & ACT
A template has been added to the article Birds Australia Southern NSW & ACT, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Longhair\talk 06:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Birds Tasmania
A template has been added to the article Birds Tasmania, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Longhair\talk 06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Birds Australia North Queensland
A template has been added to the article Birds Australia North Queensland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Longhair\talk 06:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Birds Australia Southern Queensland
A template has been added to the article Birds Australia Southern Queensland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Longhair\talk 06:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Golden Ark
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Order of the Golden Ark, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 05:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ipa
Just to let you know (looking at your Alaska edit), there are several IPA templates, summarized at IPA, that link to English and general IPA keys that are more accessible than the main article. kwami 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. For some reason I thought you were the one who added the pronunciation, and I just wanted you to know there was a more convenient way to do it. kwami 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)