User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 05

Portal:Scotland/Did you know
Just spotted your update to the DYK section, it made me chuckle and left my gob smacked - Guinness Book of Records no less. God bless Arthur, "up go the heads", Montford :-) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It beggars belief, but if Wikipedia says it, it must be true! I've come across tons and tons of things while working on the Scottish articles that ought to get put up on the portal, but I keep getting distracted and forgetting. All sections of the portal need periodic refreshing (except perhaps the intro, although a new photo/image now and again wouldn't hurt), and new sections created. If you see anything particularly noteworthy or topical, bung it on the portal (eg if you see a cracking image, put it up on Featured picture). If a suitable section doesn't exist, create one. We'll also have to start archiving some stuff to stop it getting clogged up. Eg. I have been meaning to create a new section for Wiki articles regarding Scotland-related current and future events.--Mais oui! 11:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also true if the Sunday Post says so!!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not some sort of policy / guideline that indicates Featured Article / Featured Picture / DYK entries on Portals should all be actual Wikipedia equivalents - i.e. actually have been Featured or DYK on the main pages? I seem to recall some sort of discussion somewhere or other but am not sure. I personally have no problem with a regular refreshing of this content and would be glad to help out. Like you, I regularly find brilliant stuff that could be placed here. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Establish/Reestablish
Maybe I'm being ignorant here - in which case I apologise - but I edited the Mebyon Kernow page to read 'The main objective of MK is to establish self-governance in Cornwall', instead of 'reestablish'. You reverted it with the explanation as 'POV'. Could you explain to me how this is pov? I wasn't aware that Cornwall ever had self-governance (except as an independent knigdom way over 1000 years ago - but this does not count, it would be like saying the North East referendum for an NE parliament would have been re-establishing a form of self governance); therefore 'establish' is more accurate and NPOV than 'reestablish'? Robdurbar 16:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why on earth would its period as an independent state "not count"? There is no "statute of limitation" on these things you know. If Cornwall has once been self-governing, and we both acknowledge that it has, then the correct word is re-establish. --Mais oui! 16:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but it was never an independent state. This was the Kingdom of Cornwall, which existed over 500 years before the creation 'states'; the concept simply didn't exist then. As stated before, it would be like a Northumbrian movement wanting to 're-establish' self governance. Indeed, why could I not trace the roots of my region back 2000 years, note that there was an independent tribe, and re-establish governance? To me 're-establish' suggests something within the last millenium at least! Robdurbar 17:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image on userpage
Just to let you know that fair use images are not allowed on your user page, and it should be removed. Astrotrain 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Burns Night
Having a Harviestoun Haggis Hunter's Ale and thinking of you! Best wishes, and let's get back at that damned Scottish Ale article tomorrow! You certainly keep me on my toes, and I like that. SilkTork 21:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Shires/Stewartries
Yeah, it did look that way. The term used for the early 'shires', before they ossified was, sheriffdom. There seems to have been an actual significant difference between a sherrifdom and a stewartry originally, in that a sherrifdom had a sherrif and a stewatry had a steward, although Kincardine seems to have acquired a sherrif instead of a steward quite early, and Kirkcudbright eventually did too - leaving it a difference in name rather than fact. In c. 13th sheriffdoms were being created and merged and suchforth quite freely.

Later on sherrifdoms merged though, leaving the other areas looking for another name - shires (which is etymologically connected with sheriffdoms), so it would have been counties. You will note from that Cromartyshire took its final boundaries in 1698 - less than a decade before the Union!

In England 'county' originated as being equivilant to 'earldom' (same rank) as a territorial designation pretty early on. Note that the whole business of adding unnecessary "shires" to the end of county names doesn't just afflict Scotland - ask the Duke of Devonshire. Modern usage in England is to only use the 'shire' where it would otherwise be the name of a town, or the name would otherwise be too silly (Berk, Hamp, Wilt) - these aren't Anglicisms but just regular Victorian over-wordiness.

Some other open questions: Morwen - Talk 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Peeblesshire / Tweeddale. Our article says the local people resent the name 'Tweeddale'. True or false?
 * Kirkcudbrightshire. Our article says this was invented by the Post Office.  True or false?
 * Was Galloway ever considered a county or shire in itself? Because if you google 'site:history.ac.uk "County of Galloway"' you get a couple of hits.


 * Oh, and I got much of that from here, which you should give a good read as I read it a few weeks ago and I may be misremembering things. The end of page 2 and page 3 are of particular interest.    Morwen - Talk 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Food for thought. I will respond to some of your poiints tomorrow. Crikey, you keep youself busy don't you!--Mais oui! 23:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, scary. isn't it? And to think that at the start of 2003 I never even thought about counties! Morwen - Talk 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your latest attack on me
So you are trawling for free votes from friends who do not understand the structure of the United Kingdom. As for "Thought and due consideration seem to be singularly lacking from the dabate thus far" is clearly a personal attack. We do not agree, but I deal with all comments thoughtfully and try to explain my point of view. You simply treat me with contempt. CalJW 09:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Until you explain yourself to me, I'll have to assume "who do not understand the structure of the United Kingdom" is also a rather chauvinist typo of personal attack. At least, I experience it as such from my side. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Welsh Wikipedians' notice board
I've created a fairly simple Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it. Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 19:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

British
Mais oui, there has been no policy to remove British as a nationality on Wikipedia so please refrain from endorsing the disruptive acts of this anonymous user. Many people do not identify as English such as ethnic minorities and other people with a strong connection to another country or ethnic group so it is not appropriate to label these people English. Regards Arniep 23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mais oui, sorry but someone who systematically over a week does hardly any other edits then to change British to English is (i) almost certainly not a newbie and (ii) not acting in good faith. Arniep 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, no not just Irish, I find anyone who has at least one parent who is not English prefers to be called British. And as it is not practical to check whether people may be offended by calling them English I think we should stick to using British unless they have positively asserted their englishness, not just by supporting the England football or cricket team, but in some sort of writing or speech. Arniep 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Welsh Wikipedians' notice board
Thanks for your help with this. It is much appreciated. Rhion 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * de rien --Mais oui! 19:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Labour Party
Hello (again) Mais oui! Just saw your edit to the change I made to the Scottish Labour Party (1976-1981). Not sure why you think it is POV at all. The people listed did rejoin the Labour Party (UK) and not follow Jim Sillars into the Scottish National Party. Indeed I can't even see how you think it is bitchy as you indicated. Glad it gave you a laugh...but again, I fail to see how it did. All I did was state something that is entirely factual. Feel free to reword if you want but I cannot see any justification for your deletion! User:Big Jim Fae Scotland, 31 Jan, 14:32


 * It must have been entirely subconscious on your part, but if you look at the usage of the term "active politics" I think that you will have to agree that there is a certain subtle comedic meaning being portrayed to the reader there! (Do I really have to spell it out?: you are ruining the effect!)--Mais oui! 14:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "active politics" is meant to indicate that they remained active in politics...it has no other meaning intended. Feel free to delete the term "active" if you feel so moved. I do not agree that there is any comedic value portrayed, but then maybe you and I have different senses of humour! ;o) User:Big Jim Fae Scotland 14:40, 31 January 2006 (btw, our clocks are out of synch...I'm replying to you earlier than the time you posted!)


 * Ah, the moment is gone: back to the drudgery... --Mais oui! 14:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your compliments, Mais oui!, they're appreciated. Using actual names in the text is becoming the scholarly standard, and that on wiki to a certain extent (see many continental monarchs, and early Scottish/Pictish monarchs); there are no set guidelines on Scottish Gaelic monarchs, and I regard anglicizing Gaelic names from this period as crude (remember LCD?). For the monarchs I now follow a set rule; do not anglicize Gaelic names, and do not Gaelicize standard European names after the Norman conquest of England.

I'll try and get around to that article, perhaps producing a stub (I'm much better qualified to comment on earlier styles than later ones, and I'm not sure we actually know how one was supposed to address the Scottish king in the earliest period).

The Thoraldus article is trash. Essentially it's just a name in a charter upon which the author or his spurious source has invented a biography. Many of its claims are false, such as that on the "Earls" of Lennox. Lawries' Early Scottish Charters lists in its index only one Thoraldus (alternatively Toraldus, Thorandus in other charters), a man who was the archdeacon of Lothian (as Lothian did not have its own bishop, he is the next best thing). The charter he was talking about, (Lawrie CLIX, p. 122) does not contain the name Thoraldus, but Thor (a different name), so the entire article is nonsense. This Thor is known from other sources, Thor de Travernent, son of a man called Swain, and held the manor of Tranent in Haddingtonshire - i.e. he was a native Anglo-Saxon lord of the area. Articles like this are why people call wikipedia a "dumping ground".

Anyways, the Scotland in the High Middle Ages article has been nominated (by me :)) for featured article status. The vote so far is favorable: Featured article candidates/Scotland in the High Middle Ages, but more votes don't hurt. :) - Calgacus 18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * PS, I did a stub of that article you requested. It ain't great, but at least I covered the early period decently: Style of the monarchs of Scotland. BTW, what do you think should be done with the Thoraldus article? Deletion? Or will I have to re-write it? Regards. - Calgacus 00:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Labour Party - AGAIN!
Hello again Mais Oui. Saw your change to the text. Don't you think your wording is more POV than mine ever was. You have inferred that these individuals chose to join the Labour Party as they were more likely to get a career out of them than the SNP. This was never my intention. I merely wanted to indicate that they had been active in the SLP and chose to remain active in politics but by joining the Labour Party rather than the SNP. I think you have made the article more biased with your terminology! User:Big Jim Fae Scotland, 01 February 2006; 11:19


 * I tend to agree, but you were so adamant that that sentence was not to be deleted that I had no choice but to try to work with it, but I repeat: I still do not understand what you are tring to say with your version: it is purely redundant, as it simply repeats the info in the preceding sentence, except with the sneaky implication that people who join the SNP are leaving "active politics". I repeat: exactly what are you trying to say?--Mais oui! 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that by stating they chose to remain in active politics by joining the Labour Party rather than the SNP does imply that...sneakily or otherwise. Would it not just be easier to remove the term "active" though if this is indeed your concern? User:Big Jim Fae Scotland, 01 February 2006; 13:05


 * Not very helpful, cos then you are implying that by joining the SNP these other individuals were leaving politics! I'm sorry to keep asking this, but I really do not understand: what are you trying to convey to the reader with that sentence? ... because it really does seem to me to be an exact duplicate of the previous sentence. I think perhaps what you are trying to say is that the ones who joined Labour were increasing their chances of attaining "elected office", but "elected office" is NOT the same as "active politics": one can be in "active politics" without being in "elected office" (see Machiavelli). But then these people did not KNOW that they would be later elevated to "elected office", so what on earth has that got to do with the article?--Mais oui! 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the politics 101 class Mais Oui! Most appreciated but I knew all of this already. I was not trying to indicate that they were seeking to advance their political careers in anyway...although this may well have been their motivation. What I was trying to do was say that these people are examples of those who joined the Labour Party rather than the SNP as Jim Sillars did! That is all, pure and simple. Not trying to be snide but merely offer them as examples of what a section of the SLP did upon the party's collapse, as the article already stated that many joined the SNP alternatively. I think you have read too much into the sentence to be honest with you! User:Big Jim Fae Scotland 14:12, 01 February 2006

Thoraldus
I put up the Thoraldus article for deletion. Articles for deletion/Thoraldus The article could, I suppose, be salvaged with a major edit, but not under that title. - Calgacus 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Shetland Islands
The "red link" you reverted to in Shetland refers to a non-existent article. I reverted back to the previous version containing the link History of the Orkney Islands as it contained the details of Shetland's history. clintie 10:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Skerry
Doesn't Scottish coast and countryside and Scots language cover it? It's also claimed as an Irish word in Skerries. Labelling as a Scottish stub, Irish stub and a Welsh stub seems like overkill. I think that fjord is a similar concept but isn't labelled as Norwegian, but I'm not about to start an edit war over a stub cat.--JBellis 21:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish King Names and the Treaty of Corbeil
In reverse order - why make things simple ? - WP:SCOWNB has a note that the Treaty of Corbeil article has been started and is no longer wanting. Unfortunately, it's a different treaty so there is still no article on the treaty in question. I suggested a move and disambig page just in case anyone should be confused in the future, so if you could provide some support at Talk:Treaty of Corbeil, that might help. I imagine that I could cobble up something on the offending treaty when we've got the namespace sorted.

As for the names of early kings, renaming the articles is out, so I don't see any other way but piping them to put "real" names in articles. Opening a couple of books at random I found mentions of "Bridei mac Maelchon", "Angus son of Fergus" and "Fergus son of Eochu", but not Bridei III, Angus I and Fergus II. Still, you might have a point as regards Duncan's wee laddie. That might be too much of a good thing. If there are reasons not to do it, just leave a note here and I'll see it. Cheers ! Angus McLellan 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no problem piping these names. It's crude to "anglicize" some of these names, especially when the context is Gaelic, and until they move the pages, there's no real choice but to pipe them. It's fine with some of the garbage Scottish kings articles, but most medieval Gaelic names have no anglicized form. I noticed that you changed today Máel Coluim to Malcolm in Lulach's succession box. Fair enough, but the reason that form was like that was because Máel Snechtai also appears in the succession box, and that name has no anglicization. So you've got the word Máel written twice on the same page in different forms. Most unuseful. It also implies that Máel Coluim was not Gaelic, but Máel Snechtai was; false and misleading. - Calgacus 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mais Oui!, in regards of this point, i.e. king names, please see the discussion on my talk page and please do stick your oar in. Angus McLellan 23:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Irish in GB cat vote
Hi, it would better to vote rename for this cat, otherwise someone would have to go through and change all the people in the cat by hand (the Irish in GB cat can then be recreated or just make the England Wales and Scot cats as sub cats of Irish emigrants). If the cat is renamed a bot will automatically change all the articles Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_30. Thanks Arniep 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dougie Brown
Hi, just letting you know that I reverted the changes you made to the infobox of this article (I left your other alteration alone). The infobox refers solely to Brown's international career, which he spent with England (his Scotland appearances are not "official" as they predate Scotland joining the ICC). I realise that there are problems with the format of the infobox, particularly in regard to the large flag potentially misleading readers about the nationality of individual players, but at the moment it is all we have. If you would like to suggest any modifications a good place to do so would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, which is perhaps more visible than Template talk:Infobox Cricketer. Rje 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, 2006
Hi. I notice you added links to this article from various place articles. I'm not sure I see the relevance here - we haven't done these sorts of links from anywhere else to other by-elections and in any case it will pretty soon be old news. Any objection if I remove these? What I think would be useful would be to make links to the actual constituency articles (both of them) for each place. Thanks, Morwen - Talk 07:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hullo - on the "swing" debate, I actually agree that a Lab/Lib swing exists, but I think the discussion at the Newbury article suggests there is controversy on the matter and I felt some kind of disclaimer was required. I think another debate may be required on this one... doktorb | words 09:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a no-brainer. One senior Wikipedian holds a very, very strong POV on the matter which is completely at odds with the rest of the planet. We should not humour him for one second.--Mais oui! 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing the stub on Aeden
Hi Maisoui. I have a question about the change to the stub categories you made on the Aeden page.

I don't think British royalty stub is right for that article - if you click on the link for "Royal Family" in that stub description, it goes to an article direct about the modern day British royal family. Aeden is not really a member of that family - it seems more appropriate for him to be classified instead as a British noble "stub" especially when you read the category description for the British nobility stubs on that category's page - the British noble stub category is supposed to include "royalty from the formerly separate kingdoms which make up what is now the United Kingdom."

I note, though, that there are a lot of Dalraidan monarchs listed in the British royal family stub. So your change is consistent but I don't think it is strictly correct for all those Dalraidan monarch stubs to be included as members of the modern day British royal family.

More generally, there does not seem to be a lot of consistency between articles in the the "British royal family stub" and "British nobles stub" categories in any case - What do you think? Is it time for a clean-up? All the best and pedantically yours, LeighBCD 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Caerlanrig
Thanks for the tidy-up! I like what you did. :)

Corgi 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hospitals
The Scottish NHS Boards are OK. They are now called that rather than Health Boards. Sorry for not realising what the 'in use' meant. Hopefully we'll put our quarrel behind us. Please let me know for future how to put a major edit notice on a page. Thanks. Samantha of Cardyke 11:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. It's not stroppy at all. Samantha of Cardyke 11:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Selkirk
Mais oui! I realise that you are editing the Selkirk page with the best intentions, but I feel you should consider the following: the colours worn in Selkirk at the Common Riding are True Blue and Scarlet, it is with particular historical reference that the colours are not simply blue and red It is also important historical information that Selkirk men fought at of Stirling, Falkirk, Bannockburn as well as Flodden. Also as many people visit Selkirk to celebrate Hungary’s national day, this information should also be included. Category:Selkirkshire listing should also not be removed Also I must question why the pictures were removed

Selkirk is a small town in economic decline, anything that can promote the town or give information about it be it Wikipedia or any other website, is a positive thing, however removing large amounts of relevant information from the site is not.


 * Eh... thanks for that, whoever you are, but if you look at the History of that article you will see that I did not write it! If you want to contribute, just click the Edit button and add whatever relevant info you like, as long as sourced.--Mais oui! 12:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

from selkirk history page 00:46, 15 February 2006 Mais oui! (rv supercat) as there is no link to supercat, users can only persume that Mais oui! is the author —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12:51, 16 February 2006 (talk • contribs) 81.156.24.6


 * Please see my earlier reply on your Talk page. And please log in, and sign, when commenting.--Mais oui! 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Summit Tunnel fire
I'd be interested to know why you added a stub tag to Summit tunnel fire. I don't think it needs a stub tag, but that's probably just because I'm the originator and therefore biased. What info do you think needs to be added?

Ecb 19:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Goodness knows? It is clearly an error. I have just reverted it. Sorry.--Mais oui! 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there's a post on WP:ANI concerning you. Leith p 14:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Veterinary stub proposals
Hello Mais oui!. The proposal for the new stub on veterinary medicine has now been modified. There are 51 articles at the last count which can now be included. Would it be possible please for you to review the current discussion at Stub sorting proposals and see what you think? Thanks a lot. Thor Malmjursson 12:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Timber bush
I had a quick search for information but didn't come up with anything. I'm not from Leith, although I now live in Edinburgh, the Leith in the username is part of my name. I don't really know anything about Timberbush other than the pub of the same name (if that's still open). Not much use, I'm afraid. Leith p 17:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AIV vs VIP
Hi. I noticed you added to Vandalism in Progress. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Vandalism in Progress are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) -- light  darkness (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral changes
If you wish to make changes to pages please contribute to the discussion pages. In examples such as Plaid Cymru you are undoing agreed changes without any discussion. This is unacceptable. Normalmouth 09:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I notice you didn't even participate in the discussions on Talk:Welsh nationalism and Talk:Plaid Cymru. I'm a PC supporter, and I found the changes acceptable. If you thought they weren't, why ignore the discussion and then make wholesale unilateral changes well after the event? Gareth 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that a time limit be placed on articles; I'm just intrigued by the fact that you ignored my attempt at mediation and decided that tit-for-tat mass editing was the solution to this. Gareth 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * what is his agenda? It is funny. Muriel Spark 'returned to Great Britain' becomes 'returned to the United Kingdom?' besides the usual alterations. In a more detailed article it would point out her Scottishness (or is it Scotsness?), like Sean Connery's, amounted to leaving and not returning. Rhodesia, London, New York, Italy...not Edinburgh...or Belfast. ;0) Pliny 13:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Welsh laws
I see you are removing UK parliaments Acts that relate to Wales out of the Category British laws, whereas I think they ought to be in British laws as they are made by the UK parliament, and Welsh laws (a category I recently created). I would like to agree the way to categorise laws like this. Kurando | ^_^ 11:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the introductory text at Category:British laws should be changed? Kurando | ^_^ 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Association of British Counties

 * In cases where there are two points of view, we must try and present both POV to their merits, and specifically only use verifiable and sourced information. And we shou'd discuss these matters on talk pages and use full edit summaries, something you have failed to do in the Association of British Counties article.


 * The use of the word "obfuscatory" in the Association of British Counties article is clearly relative to one's own view on the matter; although I do not agree with their interpretation of the legislation, I do not think they are being wilfully (or indeed inadvertently) unclear on the matter - I understand what they are trying to say perfectly clearly.


 * Unless you can cite a source that shows that people generally find this labelling of counties confusing, your edit counts as WP:OR and should be removed as such. If you do not cite a source, but continue to revert I am happy to RfM and/or RfAr the matter as necessary. It is your prerogative to do this now if you wish, but I am hoping for an amiable and quicker resolution than this.


 * Please let's try and defuse this matter as much as possible; I am not a fan of confrontation at all.
 * PS please could you reply to my question on the Counties of Scotland talk page? Aquilina 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Mais Oui!, you're a gentleman. No offence was taken; I ought to have clarified my concerns here earlier. I agree - the ABC article is better without the comment at all.

As for the Counties of Scotland article, there's a couple of additions I would like to make (eg giving a rough date for the first recorded use of the word "county" with some source from the NLS, and adding the material about the ongoing names, but making it explicit that the names in some/most cases predate the counties and thus the correlation is somewhat coincidental - I'd prefer to qualify the info rather than omit it, as it's a fairly commonly held belief), but I'm very busy today and need time to mull over the ideas... I'll get onto it asap though and we can discuss it then. I think we're getting close to a pretty good article now. I haven't seen any non-technical document which charts the history of this clearly, so it's quite a rewarding and worthwhile article to work on. Aquilina 10:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)