User talk:Meegs/Archive 9

Welcome back!
Welcome back! Hope you had a pleasant wikibreak. Are you ready for some more WP:PUI fun ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kralizec. There's not really much of a backlog at PUI, so I'm guessing that you have something particularly sticky on your mind; lay it on me. I still going to be away a lot, so you may need to be patient with me in the near future. ×Meegs 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just an old friend of ours re-uploading images that have been deleted before, plus a slew of new ones tagged PD-self. I would be inclined to believe his  tags, were it not for the wildly divergent image quality (from professional looking aerial photos  to "teenager with a camera phone" ) and a startlingly large variety of sources: some appear to have been taken via a camera phone (,, etc.), a Fujifilm FinePix A330 , some have metadata suggesting they are scans , others looks like they are thumbnail images (, , etc.), and several have no metadata at all (, , etc.).  Unfortunately, except for one (Image:Lasvegastower.jpg is obviously from ) I have not been able to find the "real" sources for any of these photos.  Combined with my lack of evidence on the previously deleted photos (judging by the file names and descriptions, I assume that Image:Bryan co crthouse.jpg is same as Image:Bryan county courthouse.jpg, that Image:OKC at night.jpg is the same as Image:Okc @ nite.jpg, etc.), I am pretty much at a loss on what to do here.


 * My intention is not to drop this whole mess on your lap, however I presume you have access to admin tools (previously deleted images, etc.) that can prove beneficial. Any guidance you may have on how I should proceed with this is greatly appreciated.  Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We've put up with this for long enough. To recap, some of these images have now been uploaded 3 or 4 times without details or explanation, there's been no response to our talk messages or PUI listings in October and December, and without much effort we have identified images from here, here, here, here, and here. I'm going to go ahead and delete them all and leave Native Boy one last message. Good work. ×Meegs 04:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All zapped. I'll try to remember to check myself, but let me know if you see any more suspicious uploads from this user. Thanks again. ×Meegs 06:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much; I really appreciate all of your help on this tricky issue!! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hakeem
Nuke it. I uploaded that back in my less informed days. If I knew it still existed I would have requested deletion. Quadzilla99 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Zap. ×Meegs 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request
(copied from the Bot request page)

Despite instructions asking them not to, new users often include categories in their submissions to Articles for creation. Because all submissions from a single day are located on one page, it is the daily archives (e.g., Articles for creation/2007-04-17) that end-up in categories alongside mainspace articles. It would be very nice to have a bot go the AfC archives and linkify every category. Something like:
 * → Category:Living people

I did this manually from about Jan-June last year, and it wasn't much fun. What we have now is about 300 pages, plus one new one every day, that needs this treatment. ×Meegs 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This could be done with AWB, though I can't think of any way to remove the sortkey like that. As these are all archived pages (except for the today's page) does it really matter that much how they look after the category is turned to a link (ie. would Smith, John which would look like Smith, John be fine)? Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (responding at WP:BOTREQ) Thanks, Z-man. ×Meegs 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Advert
Hi Meegs! Could you please advise if this article and external links are OK or, regarded as Spam? Richard Harvey 11:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard. The tone of the article and its links seem ok to me. The label itself is pretty borderline on notability, and the article has no secondary sources, but I [think] it would be kept if you nominated it for AfD. It's a new article; give it time, and perhaps slap a maintainance tag on it. ×Meegs 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Done! Richard Harvey 09:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

the 48 laws of power OR 48 NOTHING MORE PRECISELY
hi there, very sorry you removed the rephrasing i did, took me lot of time to change everything. i think you did it wrong, i mean what use would be the 7_deadly_sins page without expression of any of them??? ==> same point for the 48 laws of power!!! i did rephrase the 48 laws so they don't "look" like the original copyrighted content. And as long as though are not copyrighted i personnaly think it's fair to express world's knowledge into wikipedia! but in this case i really think it's shit (sorry, i've confess i've drunk a little tonight) and what's the point of wikipedia? being a meta-meta-meta-knowledge-website with no content? if it's the case then i rather stop wasting my time contributing to it!! So please compare the original 48 laws as expressed and my own rephrasing i did not copyrighted it!!! Neantbriceen 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (responding at Talk:The 48 Laws of Power, where this was cross-posted) ×Meegs 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok then you're probably right, i'll wait for 2145 then copyright would be expired, ;) more seriously, is there an "official" flag that we could put on such article to clearly point out article are far from being complete because under copyright?? a bit like the "featured article" flag? if nothing like this exist, where/to whom may i suggest it? Neantbriceen 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think most readers understand that we are an encyclopedia and not a receptacle of all manner of information. Even when the book does enter the public domain, wikisource or wikiquote might be a more appropriate place for the entire list. ×Meegs 08:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NFL Draft
Thanks for the links, why do I need the transactions? Are those supposed to be listed also? (please respond on my talk page) Trevor GH5 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (responding shortly at User talk:Trevor GH5) ×Meegs 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Trevor GH5 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Double check?
If you could double check some of my recent WP:COPYVIO reports, I would really appreciate it. I have an article and report; nine image reports; and the final user message. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Kralizec. Everything you did was just fine. Everything I'm about to say is just to make things easier in the future.


 * When you find a likely copyvio in text, first look back through its history. If there's a clean version, just revert back there and notify the contributor (and check the rest of their contributions). When even the first version is dirty, and the copyvio is obvious, you can tag the article for speedy deletion under criterion 12; if there's something complex about the case, then use WP:CP as you did. There are instructions for both methods at the top of WP:CP.


 * For an image, I'd recommend first looking at whether the uploader has identified both the image's copyright holder and license. If they haven't, consider simply tagging it with {{subst:nsd}} and {{subst:nld}}, respectively. Those templates expand to no source and no license and are both markers for speedy criterion I4. Functionally, they feed Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status, which are checked and deleted after about seven days. They also have their own user notification templates. Using WP:CP is fine too, but these processes are lighter-weight and always less backlogged. If you have tracked the images down yourself, simply add that info  directly to the image page. In the case of these images, the Mediawiki software already tagged them with no license based on the uploader's selections on Special:Upload. They'll almost certainly be deleted based on that before your WP:CP listing.


 * As you know, image licenses that you suspect are bullshit go to WP:PUI. If there's no doubt whatsoever, though — like a big fat Getty watermark and a PD-self template — don't hesitate to rip the fraudulent tag off right there and replace it with no license. Oh, and notify the contributer and check their other uploads, naturally.


 * There's more to tell, but that's already quite a lot to read. Feel free to hit me with questions any time. ×Meegs 08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the great information on criterion 12, {{subst:nsd}}, and {{tls|nld}; I will be sure to use those avenues the next time I run into an issue like this (especially if these processes have shorter backlogs!). I noticed that after the message you posted on the editor's talk page, he reverted your changes to Mark VI monorail and changed all the images to over to fairuse.


 * As to the Mark VI monorail article itself, I did not revert it to an earlier, copyvio free version because all of the Disney-specific info had since been moved to Walt Disney World Monorail System and this article was just about the trains themselves.  Did I presume too much?  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The images don't meet item 1 of our non-free content criteria, and so can not be used. There's a template for this problem too: {{subst:rfud}}, which expands to replaceable fair use. It's also likely that the website that you dug-up is not the photos' copyright holder, another piece of info that we require for all images. One way or another, they will be deleted.


 * Not reverting the article was good, for both your reason and for the unforseeable reason that this user has choosen to fight tooth and nail. Without the CP listing, the argument might well be taking place on your talk page! Whether the copyvio is real or not, things usually go much smoother than this, believe me.  Given the alleged inaccuracies, the lack or sources, and size of the pre-copyvio version, I suspect the best thing to do from here is to wipe the article and wait for a better one to be created anew. ×Meegs 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would appear that s/he did not believe you . --Kralizec! (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for continuing to recreate the copyvio, and now that all doubt about the text's origin is gone, deleted the article. If you're able, could you whip-up a one sentence stub replacement to get things started on the right foot. A solid reference would, of course, be great. ×Meegs 03:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're awesome. ×Meegs 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for all of your help, I really appreciate it! One of these days I will make admin and be able to fix these things myself without having to bother you.  Per your request, I re-created the article as a stub, but you might want to go ahead and nuke the old talk page.  As many times as the old talk page was archived and de-archived, making any sense out of it is nigh-impossible.  Thanks again, Kralizec! (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More Bother
HeadMouse is now calling names and being incivil. Could you consider an indefinite block? I am not looking forward to dealing with him/her again.--MrFishGo Fish 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all three of you for helping out with this - Kralizec! stepped in when I put the original issue over on WP:ANI, but even then I didn't expect it to continue the way it has after the issue I had was resolved. I appreciate everyone's calm response and assistance. Ellbeecee 20:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. As for blocking, no, things don't look good to me either, but let's give this person another chance. ×Meegs 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Judging by his response and subsequent edits, I have come to the painful conclusion that he just does not get it.  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they've been reblocked. I would've choosen such a long duration, but at least it gives us a long while to worry about other things. ×Meegs 04:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

probably should have let you know about this debate
Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 11. It's ending in the next day or so, so if you have a case (pro or con, not sure how you feel after our last discussion), you should make it.--Mike Selinker 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Xenu
+ __NOGALLERY__ becuase of non-free images -- Um, non-free images cannot be categorized on Wikipedia? Smee 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi Smee. They can be categorized, but they must not be rendered outside of the main namespace (Non-free content criteria #9). To me, it doesn't seem right for articles to share their cats with images, but that can be discussed another day. ×Meegs 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I have seen this done in other places, however. Smee 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I've seen it too, though it's really not very common. It's always bothered me, but never so much that I've pushed for a guideline. ×Meegs 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm, interesting. Perhaps others will think differently in the future.  Meegs, I must say thank you for being so polite in clarifying this for me.  Your input is welcome and your tact is most appreciated.  Later, Smee 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Wow, if you think my tact is remarkable, I hope I never meet the jackasses you're used to dealing with ;) Take care ×Meegs 23:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Days peer review
Right now, I'm editing the Days of our Lives article to move it to good or featured standard. When you have a chance, can you respond here (and at my talk page) and tell me what you think of the article thus far, and if you want, can you comment on the peer review linked at the Days talk page? Thanks! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hot debate going on at Template talk:Infobox NFL player
Appreciated your valuable input during the last flame up at Template talk:Infobox NFL player. I was hoping you would weigh in on the current one. — x a n d e r e r  21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

People by former religion
I noticed that you are busy closing with categories for deletion of 23 July 2007. The past few days I tried to deal with the most frequent stated reason for deletion for Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23. Please do not close but vote to keep based on my very recent edits diff diff. I am busy informing contributors who voted for deletion about my recent edits. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. In addition please review my arguments voiced there, among others that we should not remove the category former Muslims etc. because it is not a defining characteristic of some people, though it is for e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Following the same reasoning we should not delete the category:painters only because it is not a defining characteristic for some people, like Adolf Hitler. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the discussion open for the moment, but will not vote as you instruct. ×Meegs 11:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I solved the main stated the reason for deletion by explicitly adding the condition for inclusion in the category i.e. "defining characteristic". In addition, I removed removed from most categories the people who did not fit the added condition. For other categories, I merely added warning templates plus explanations on the talk pages to save time. Andries 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

fictional locations
I updated the fictional locations nomination to address some of your concerns. Still feel the same way?--Mike Selinker 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't want to hold up progress. ×Meegs 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Message from Ken225
I have received a message from you concerning that i had allegedly vandalized a page, i can assure you that i would never due such a thing and find the tone of your message quite disturbing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken225 (talk • contribs).


 * Hello, Ken. I am not sure what message you are referring to, but I apologize if it was misplaced. As far as I know, we have never communicated before. This message to me was your first edit to Wikipedia using the account Ken225. If you let me know where I wrote to you before, I would be happy to talk more about it. Regards ×Meegs 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
Thanks for the help, I was getting a bit carried a way! :-) jj137 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Check this out
Check out my sig! -- AR Argon  08:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Argon. Have we met before? If not, it's nice to meet you. Yes, I like the colors. ×Meegs 08:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on "Roses"
Thank you for your advice. I didn't know about the "Move" function before.--Redandready 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: deleting categories
Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I would normally reply there, but since you offered congratulations and condolences, I thought it only polite to come here. Condolences might well be the way to go -:). I understand what you said, but I am still not sure about closing that particular CfD. I'll discuss it further at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. --Bduke 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Science School
How did you know the laptops at CSS were ibook G4s? Was it already in the text because I'm too lazy to read it all? or do you have a relation to the school? Ard0(Talk - Contribs) 07:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ard0. Yes, that detail was already in the article; some guy named Ardo191 put it there ;) And no, I have no relation to the school. ×Meegs 10:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for cleaning up that bit of vandalism on my talk page. '''&#160;east . 718 ' at 16:44, September 6, 2007''&#160;

Re: Text copied from other websites
Sorry, I just didn't know exactly what I was doing was not allowed. I've never once copied and pasted anything from another site, nor have I typed it word-for-word. I always thought I changed enough that it wasn't a problem.► Chris Nelson  11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * replying at User talk:Chrisjnelson, where I've already written quite a bit. Let's keep our conversation there.×Meegs 11:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Marlborough
Thanks for sorting out the disambiguation page. I misunderstood how these pages should be named. I thought I'd corrected the ones I'd changed but this one seems to have escaped my attention. Thanks for picking it up. Dahliarose 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Meegs, and happy Thanksgivings!
The question I want to ask you is about my rights to upload pictures here.I am not familiar with the copyright law and I do not want to brake it.I was browsing the discography of British classic rock band Uriah Heep and I discovered, that their album Conquest issued 1980 has no picture of the original LP-record cover.I've noticed that, for their album High and Mighty you did the upload of the LP-record cover. My question is: how low resolution should be the copy of original to do not brake the copyright law.Or if ANY copying is a violation - please, let me know. Thanks                                                      Emil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzzkata (talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 October 2007
 * Hello Emil. We need our use to qualify as fair use in U.S. copyright law. I can't give you a definitive answer about resolution, but anything under 250x250 pixels is probably small enough. When you do upload, be sure to include a Non-free use rationale on the image's description page. Let me know if you have any more questions. ×Meegs 04:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The University of Southern Mississippi
Acknowledged. Thanks for the heads up. /Blaxthos 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow up - The guideline seems pretty clear to me: A definite article should be applied only if "The" is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere.
 * From their history page (emphasis added):
 * "Founded by Legislative Act on March 30, 1910, The University of Southern Mississippi was the state’s first state-supported teacher training school."
 * "To that end, he reorganized the academic programs into colleges and schools, and on February 27, 1962, Gov. Ross Barnett signed the bill that made Mississippi Southern College a university: The University of Southern Mississippi."
 * Student Thesis
 * External usage:
 * Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ([link): "The University of Southern Mississippi redesigned World Literature, a required general education course that enrolled 1000 students each term, in order to eliminate course drift and inconsistent learning experiences."
 * E-Academy (link)
 * The name is defined with the article "The" by state statute.
 * I believe the move is appropriate and the policy is clear (in this case). Should I continue?  Revert?  What's your opinion?  /Blaxthos 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You may well be right. This is not really an area of expertise or interest for me; I was just trying to head-off trouble. I suggest that you add your argument to the article's talk page and then leave a note for Mike asking him join that discussion. In the meantime, there's no problem leaving the job half done. Best ×Meegs 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

St. Nicolaus church in Baczal Dolny
Jestem Polakiem i proszę jeśli możesz o napisanie artykułu o Kościele św. Mikołaja z Bączala Dolnego(na polskiej wikipedii Kościół z Bączala) moj login to: Diabetes

Pozdrawiam...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.234.34 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have left him a message on pl wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Q5, Q6, and other comments show considerable disagreement with the project's free content goals, so I'm not at all comfortable with RTD making image deletion decisions...I'm also disappointed by their response to Ronnotel's request for edit summaries, and share Xoloz and WJBscribe's concerns."

Please let me explain this more clearly. I do not oppose Wikipedia's goal of free content. Rather, I think that it should be balanced against the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia. Both using high-quality (though sometimes non-free) content and using free-as-in-freedom content further the end goal of Wikipedia: to provide more knowledge to more people in the form of an encyclopedia. Thus, we should seek a balance between free and non-free content that brings the maximum amount of knowledge to the maximum amount of people. The current non-free content policy does a very good, though not perfect, job of bringing us closer to this goal.

As I also explained in my RfA, it would be inappropriate of me to use the administrative tools to force this view on others, so my personal opinion of the policy is largely irrelevant anyway.

I have enabled the prompted edit summaries option in my user preferences.

I am aware of the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, and I can assure you that I will be correctly using this wikiterminology in the future. To question 9, what I meant was that I refuse to get involved in any deletion "discussion" revolving around lack of a use rationale. I will neither close such a debate as keep nor delete; I'd rather stay far away from the enforcement of 10c.

You may also be interested in my detailed response to WJBscribe's comments.

Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is a good idea for someone with your view about free content to make image deletion decisions their primary task. I know that you say that you will implement the policies as they are, rather than as you'd like them, and you very well might. I just think it is bad idea, and that it wouldn't be good for you or for the project. I'm not sure it shows good judgement on your part to seek specifically to implement those rules that you do not beleive in, either.  My concern about your general inexperience is very minor, and came mostly from your strange account of IAR, not the block terminology. I'm glad that you've enabled the edit summary prompt. That concern was also minor; I didn't think your use was all that bad, but I did not like your response to the user that asked you to use them more often. ×Meegs 09:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

  Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → → Janitor's new tools

Spam must stop -- will new mop act?

Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools

Earnest newbie furrows brow

Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about

Sorcerer's Apprentice mop

Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful

Wikipedia trembles

Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why

Copyright always confused

Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked

Shucks those range blocks are tricky!

Will get it straight soon.



Dear RfA friend, I will learn, chaos will fade ''Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Meegs, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to getting going as a new admin.

-- A. B. (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: List of deaths through alcohol
No, no objection whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielspencer91 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of dental practice management software
An article that you have been involved in editing, Comparison of dental practice management software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">T able<font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">M anners U·T·C 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First Leeds
I have placed a query on the Talkpage of the article about the inclusion of timetable and services. I wondered if you may like to add some thoughts on the subject? Richard Harvey (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'll take a look shortly. ×Meegs 14:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned you at RFA, hope you don't mind.
Just wanted to let you know I mentioned and paraphrased your earlier oppose of an RFA at this rfa. Dureo (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that last night. If I can find the time to thoroughly review the candidate's progress, I may comment on the new rfa as well. Best ×Meegs 12:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha_sburg
Hello, Meegs. I am in the process of stamping out the horrid misspelling of the name "Habsburg". When I am finished you might consider the conclisons for your "r from misspellings" list. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Finished, at least as far as the links go. Str1977 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Syntax
Hi Meegs! Happy New Year. Thanks for the syntax correction! Richard Harvey (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

New image project
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects WikiProject Free images, WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)