User talk:Midgley/200605

Reiss Afd
Just for the record concerning your comment here (which I only just noticed), when I originally listed the article, the article said the injury was a hematoma. Someone changed it to "sub-dural haemorrhage" after the fact. The news articles sourced described it as a non-life-threatening minor injury. I just wanted to correct your impression that I was trying to be dismissive of the injuries, I was going by what the article and sources said at the time I came upon the article. -- M P er el ( talk 22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted. I accept and believe that without reservation.  cc to user talk, this'll archive soon. Midgley 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you : ) -- M P er el ( talk 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The article before deletion linked to this article, which states, "He was diagnosed with a sub-ural hematoma, swelling cuased by bleeding in the brain". I assumed this was a spelling mistake and used "sub-dural", and since I thought "bleeding in the brain" was synonymous with haemorrhage, the phrase became "sub-dural haemorrhage". Though I defer to your medical knowledge. - Xed 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:86.10.231.219
..

I've posted a request for other admins to look into the situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC - trolling

List of medical journals
I retained your entry:

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (formerly the Medical Sentinel, magazine of the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons)

on List of medical journals because it's listed as peer reviewed. If there are doubts to its legitimacy being listed in the company of medical journals (which should be relatively nonpolitical), I would not be against its removal. Evolauxia 12:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is broadly respectable although more directed to aims than eg the BMJ.

Good articles
Jenner: Now a good article. -- HamedogTalk 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Midgley/Scotch College, Perth

Monotremes
The Platypus is a cool creature. But does it transfer immunity with its mother's milk?

You don't know me but...
... I thought you should know that the recently deleted Peter Fletcher has been nominated for Deletion Review. Given your involvement in the deletion nomination you may have opinions to express there. David | Talk 10:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it! Thanks. If it is going to be done, let us actually do it well. Midgley 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC) User_talk:Midgley/Fletcher

AFD / RFD
Hi. You've recently listed Texas Medical Algorithm Project on AFD, but this is a redirect, not an article. If you're proposing that the redirect page is deleted, it should be listed on WP:RFD not WP:AFD. If you're proposing that the linked-to article, Texas Medication Algorithm Project is deleted, it should be that article (not the redirect) listed on WP:AFD. Thanks, Waggers 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * RFD it is... and another TLA learned. Midgley 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re : reversion of WPA after closure of AfD
This whole issue's looks complex...perhaps you may want to ask the admin noticeboard for a third opinon? - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Texas Medical Algorithm Project
In case you don't monitor Redirects for deletion, I placed a Keep vote on your Texas Medical Algorithm Project listing that you might wish check / counter. Let me know if what I said doesn't make sense. -- JLaTondre 23:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Description of philosophy and definition of the term
Hi Midgley. In you apparently disagree with describing philosophy before defining the term philosophy, per this edit with the comment "if you are going to define it, doing that after ratehr than before you say it is notiriously difficult to deifine will excuse many things." Before that edit, we had discussed the desired focus of the introduction on Talk:Philosophy. The result of that discussion was agreement that the primary focus of the introduction should be the topic of philosophy instead of the word philosophy, mostly to reflect the difference between the goals of Wikipedia and of Wiktionary. In order to make the focus be the topic instead of the word, we agreed to move the definition of the term after the description of the topic. You hadn't taken part in that discussion when you made your edit. Please let me know (here, on my talk page, or on Talk:Philosophy) whether you are aware of and disagree with the outcome of that discussion. If so, the talk page would be the ideal place to promote that point of view. If you were just unaware of that discussion, it seems your edit should be reverted. The Rod (&#9742; Smith) 17:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:204.100.220.2
I don't know if you can block people, but this guy vandalized A Clockwork Orange today. Numerous earlier instances of vandalization.
 * WP:AIV is the place Midgley 17:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

asymmetric dimethylarginine
I see you had a go at the main description. I came to this as it was linked into diabetes - yet hardly current mainstream therapy ! I think the article risks giving an original research opinion (at very least an interesting monocular interpretation of the current research). I have tried to toned down the description of L-arginine as having proven benefit. Other comments I have left on Talk:Asymmetric dimethylarginine. David Ruben Talk 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for the edit to change L-arginine to conditionally essential. i think that change is a better dexcription of the process involved here, even though the literature seems to be tilted to the use of non-essential. and yes why wouldnt much of this apply to many other mammals? ill let you enter that ground though. regards, Anlace 15:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Britain: Great in AD50?
Copied from User talk:Bastin8

Not so sure about that change to Exeter. Possibly setting it to ]]Roman Britain[[ if there be an article on such would be no less appropriate? I'm not going to touch it myself. Midgley 20:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I understand your objection. The article referred to the island, which is Great Britain.  According to the classical (that is, Greek) definition, 'Britain' means the British Isles.  According to the modern (that is, incorrect) definition, it means the United Kingdom.  Thus, it is plainly unsuitable to refer to the island.
 * 'Roman Britain' (besides the clearly unencyclopaedic use of the term 'Britain') would also be inappropriate, since the article refers to a time before the Roman conquest of Gaul, never mind the conquest of Great Britain. Bastin8 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It just seemed a description of something more of a whole than existed at the time, but if it is the landmass, well, whatever.  Midgley 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

message
Thanks for the message, I won't be upset if you dismantle the page, I just try to improve what I seeGleng 11:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tip
Thanks for the tip on adding questions for citations for future editors. I am not an expert on the topic of autism & vaccines, and wanted someone else to look for a citation on what appeared to have been an overly generalized and stereotyped statement. It appears that the person who deleted my comments also improved the offending statement. I may do some research on this controversy, but it is not high on my list, right now. Jgwlaw 01:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism Epidemic/Incidence
You may be interested that I have reconsidered my vote on the AfD. I am as-yet unsure of whether to contribute to either article. I certainly want to see what the outcome of the vote is. You are welcome to make use of my comments on Talk:Autism epidemic. Wholesale unilateral replacement of text, or "nuking" would probably not be the best way to improve relationships amongst editors. Colin°Talk 18:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unilaterally, it would never happen. However replacing with a new version may be a good way to resolve an impasses.  Whatever.  Midgley 18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Article survived afd. There were a few improvements to it but is is still far from a good article.  A previous comment on the autism noticeboard may be relevant to why it is likely to stay bad. Midgley 09:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

:Ombudsman's WP:3RR.
There is no requirement for consistency between admins, or indeed editors, but Steve Block and 10* could disucss this difference. Midgley 08:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to User talk:Ombudsman&mdash;while deleting all of your comments from his talk page wasn't the most polite thing he could have done, you haven't exactly distinguished yourself as a paragon of civility and virtue in dealing with him, either.

He's read your remarks, and doesn't want to hear from you further. Please respect his wishes. Frankly, it appears to be at least plausible that the AfD edit he made was an innocent error, and we are bound to assume good faith.
 * I'd certainly have assumed good faith if the response ahd been "oops, sorry. Which is a response that has been elicited previously.  Plausibility requires a mechanism - not for the first time, the mechanism would include rejecting a warning from the software that there was an edit conflict.

Others are clearly intentional: This,, this: , , , ; this, of an afd after it was closed, so as to restore acrimnoy , Midgley 08:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, examining that AfD I've half a mind to block you and damn near everyone else who's made more than one paragraph of comments there for an assortment of violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch! There is certainly spreading incivility etc around certain topics, but it goes back well before I became involved, and has never been effectively tackled. Midgley 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm posting a note in Talk Polio..., rather than here. B'regards. Fra nkB 15:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback
It's not 'Polio', and not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank: (Beats handling problems!) re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! Fra nkB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Best! Fra nkB 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just ripped this off my talk cleaning up for a WikiDayOff tomarrow, and realized you weren't an invitee on the above. Apologies. I've gotten some good input, but can use more. Bear in mind to go to the talk section link first for the brief, then the article. The issue is really how to design an article covering the topic. This 'draft' just sort of 'happened', as is explained. (btw- if you don't like history, don't bother! )


 * Thanks for stopping in the ad-hoc peer review on Arsenal of Democracy! Best wishes! Fra nkB 15:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whale
I'm a bit confused by this - was this link previously spammed on that page? I found the link through a Google search for information on the subject of the article, rather than anything to do with the editor. I honestly can't see any value in breaking this link, since it's a reference I'm trying to cite (and we're only on the talk page!) and so I've replaced it. Shimgray | talk | 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Punch AfD
First off; your AfD comment was removed because it incorrectly linked to the original AfD discussion from early 2005 which is now closed.

Before you redo the AfD proposal, you may wish to consider that in addition to the original 2005 there was a second nomination in February 2006 and a third nomination this month (April 2006)
 * Articles for deletion/Donkey punch,
 * Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (second nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (third nomination).

Fourohfour 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably too much trouble and too nasty. SHould have been sent to jokes etc, except I suppose nobody htougth it was funny Midgley 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not being funny hasn't stopped a lot of the rubbish in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense though :-/ BTW, I definitely wasn't recommending the AfD, quite the opposite. But seeing as how your attempt wasn't a cynical, disruptive point-making, soapboxing bad-faith effort like the third AfD proposal, I didn't want to ram this viewpoint down your throat... :-) Fourohfour 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re : please revisit an MfD you closed - I have relisted it
Noted. BTW I don't close MfDs these days already. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * lol, oh no no no I didn't thought it was criticism, just that I'm no longer as active as I used to for the past few months in this aspect. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

86 RfC
You (or someone) should add the RfC to the list at Requests for comment/User conduct, since most people won't be able to find it otherwise. I'd do it but I don't know what the accompanying description should be. – Tifego (t)08:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Medical Controversies
Also nice to see that someone is highlighting these. You can add 'Homeopathy', 'Chiropractic', 'Applied Kinesiology' and possibly a few more besides! - Ballista 10:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've inserted this message in Category talk:Alternative medicine - "Coming in late to this debate, I would suggest that the tag 'Pseudoscience' is inherently WP non-PC. It is surely POV by its very nature. There are differences of opinion on what represents 'science' and therefore what represents 'pseudoscience'. In my experience, both tags could apply to some aspects of both 'alternative' and 'mainstream' medicine. Furthermore, there are practices that have developed through observation, in both categories of medicine, which have not been 'scientifically proven', according to modern criteria, and are therefore not EBM (evidence-based medicine). That does not make them invalid. I have held back from editing articles on various aspects of alternative medicine, as they seem so fraught with sabotage, ideology, bigotry and all sorts of other un-WP stuff (sometimes coming from both 'sides'). I believe that WP is the loser in all this. - Ballista 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)"
 * Hi - just moved this lot from your user page where, with great shame, I have to admit I put it in error, y'day! Apologies - Ballista 04:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

MMR Vaccine
reply and original moved


 * Attenuated as distinct from 1) wild or 2) dead or 3) sub-unit. Both subtypes of the strain Jerryl-Lynn wil be attenuated.  We don't have compulsory vaccination of children and I'm not part of a debate about it.  Vaccination against the potentially lethal childhood diseases seems to me a good idea, a view shared by the health services and governments of every country in the world.  I think I was the first editor to introduce the actual contents of MMR, that it is a mixture of three vaccines, prior to that readers were being presented with it as a separate thing from any of its components, something which has happened with an article on MMRV recently again. Midgley 16:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your replies strike me as surprisingly rude. In particular, your numbered series of assertions sounds erudite but is truly misleading.  You then accuse me of being " a source which may be unreliable in evaluating ... well, almost anything."
 * Sorry,., I was in a bit of a rush.  The remark about a source definitely doesn't apply to you, I wondered if you had picked something up from a propagandist - IE a source unreliable about things.  Midgley 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that explanation. Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your assertions:
 * (1) We all know this, and it is inherent in my original complaint about the traditional term "attenuated."
 * (2) I think you are mistaken. There are published reports of differences in proteomics between JL1 and JL2. Perhaps you are unaware of this: Changes in Mumps Virus Gene Sequence Associated with Variability in Neurovirulent Phenotype and the other such publications.

It is a bit specialist for me - as a jobbing doctor with an interest in it - I think it is actually a bit specialist for most virologists or immunologists. That may suggest it is not really encyclopaedia material ... DOes it have a different immunogenicity, virulence, etc?  THose are potentially relevant for a vaccine.Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As a computer scientist with professional experience in bioinformatics, it is the kind of article I've enjoyed reading for the last 9 years. Yes the strains do have different virulence w.r.t. tissue type (histotropism).  See that article's summary.Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (3) Your statement seems disingenuous. The Mumps genome is a single, linear, RNA-, 16kbase sequence with 7 genes which are known to encode 8 proteins.  Comparing this to the human genome is not merely extreme, but seems deliberately misleading.
 * Well, that is clever of it. What is the result of the two differences in sequence observed?  I didn't look it up again - on my way out to dinner - but in principle two things obtain: 1)theoretically I knew that, and 2)It is smaller than the human genome and therefore any given codon is much les likely to be insignificant, however the principle is a general one that applies to viruses.   Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The principle in general does not apply to viral genomes. There is much more junk genomic material in human DNA than (proportionally speaking) in any virus.  In the case of Mumps, the case actually at hand I might remind you, the amount of non-coding, non-regulatory (promoter regions, etc.) material very minimal even for a virus. Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Put another way:
 * {|border="1"


 * Genome
 * Base Pairs
 * Human
 * 3 000 000 000 000
 * Mumps
 * 15 300
 * }
 * (4-5) You are really repeating yourself on Freshman Biology, and also mistaken in the sense that there have been observed proteome differences between JL1 and JL2.
 * Background.
 * Arguably.
 * Background.
 * Arguably.


 * (6) We agree on this point. This is why I asked you to elaborate on "attenuated."  And by that I did not mean, "Teach us English."  I mean, "by what mechanism have the viruses been attenuated?"  What is the actual meaning, in this specific case, of "attenuated."  We all know that it represents the distinctions you cited: cultivated as opposed to wild, weaker than the wild strain in the following measured ways, etc.
 * Probably best to ask Merck. If I have to, when I come back from holliday, I could evaluate the several references to this Google search:   Again, this may be a little post-graduate, if not PhD level for an encyclopaedia.  Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bit silly to hide behind the veil of "too advanced information." It's a fact that there are more strains identified in the vaccine than generally spoken of.  This same situation was identified in polio vaccines and you may also want to do a search on that literature concerning neurovirulence in polio vaccine.  What is important is that the information be correct and not misleading, IMO. Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, Midgley, I agree everyone should get vaccinated. I also think it would be nice if we had less-controversial vaccines to choose from.  In the U.S. presently, we are about to be hit with a major Mumps outbreak.  Lots of people will be getting Mumps booster shots.  Considering all the controversy surrounding MMR, there is good reason to make the article more comprehensive and fact-based.  Merely using the traditional word "attenuated" is deeply unsatisfying; nobody is learning anything from that.  I notice the reference I cited uses the term "neuroattenuated."  May I suggest that we adopt that term?
 * I finished giving my patients their MMR boosters to avoid that last year, and treated or observed a couple of people who chose not to get them or didn't get them for Mumps. My advice, which you can by all means repeat, is that everyone should ensure they have an adequate level of immunity to Mumps, ahead of the spread of disease, by the best means available to them.  If they live in or visit Exeter I shall be happy to assist them in this.  Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Neuroattenuated" is not a term I am familiar with. I personally would avoid using it on that basis alone, and also on the groujnds that it seems a term likely to confuse, me if not others. Midgley 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, "neuroattenuated" means that the virus' virulence in human nerve cells (neurovirulence) has been reduced, as compared to the wild strain from which it was derived. Dr. Hilleman passaged the virus through growth media (Chicken Eggs and Human + Bovine Serum Albumin) that selected for strains that were less well adapted to human nerve tissue.  Somehow, his strains were also useful for a live vaccine.  In the study I cited, the researchers used Vero cells (I love linking to that article!) and other growth media to derive (from the "attenuated" strains) new generations that were increased in neurovirulence.  They then sequenced the mutations which led to this adaptation and compared these mutations to the differences between JL1 and JL2.  However, they could not reach a definitive conclusion regarding the comparative neurovirulence of JL1 vs. JL2 because of confounding factors. Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an appropriate replacement term might be "attenuated neurovirulence". Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I seemed to steal some of your credit. I think it's wonderful that you added the ingredients to the intro on MMR Vaccine!  But let's put more citable science in that article in preparation for making it utterly reasonable. Heathhunnicutt 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, but I'd suggest that attenuation of viruses is a _general_ topic rather than one to replicate into articles on specific vaccines. Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree very much -- in each case, there will be specific information about the way in which each virus has been attenuated. That specific information should not be lost.Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you also wrote this in your reply:

I see that reference one and reference three in MMR give the information that the viruses are attenuated, the latter giving it in part as part of the actual reference text. Would you care to replace the fact tag with a further footnote link to one or both of those if you feel the latter is needed, please? I'm a little unclear what caused you to think there was a problem, and also to express it in terms of a lack of balance or POV of mine, would you care to enlarge on that?


 * Yes, I would love to enlarge on that. I like your POV, but I do not like the article's POV.  I got in touch with you via a fact tag because I wanted to obtain a reference from you -- you are a physician interested in the article.  The problem with the article is not extremism of your POV, but rather the anti-vaccine content is greatly out of balance.  As I see it, the initial steps of rectifying this are to improve the on-topic portions of the article. Heathhunnicutt 19:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)
You are invited to vote at Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that the VfD you just voted is currently closed. The present discussion is located at Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)--RWR8189 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

HDN
You have confessed to knowning little about HND of the newborn and to not reading articles before making comments and so I do not understand the reasons for your editing on HDN. Snowman 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is probably a tactful way of putting that comment, along with the convenience for those of us who have been away for a week of pointing to the actual edit or article... but there is a considerable and significant difference between a practicing doctor making it clear he is not an expert on a specific condition (unlike, say, a professor or consultant in Haematology) and "confessing to knowing little". It may not be so clearly apparent to those who are not any of those things.  I don't treat it, might diagnoses it, do actively engage in preventing it, and regard it as one of those many medical conditions I should have a more than encyclopaedic but less than specialist knowledge of and a clear and useful mental model of how it wors,  WHich applies to all UK general practitioners.  As to the reasons for editing - that'd be to make them more encyclopaedic and better.  HDN is a condition arising from a group of similar causes, and writing a complete article on each cause as though it is a separate and unique thing in itself is sub-optimal as a way of informing the reader, and also in maintaining accuracy and the articles.  Even though WP is not a hierarchcial collection of information.   My user page notes what I do - Snowman's doesn't - doctors are invited to make themselves known, as I suppose are everyone else.  Copied to Snowman's talk page, on my watchlist, furhter replies there please. . Midgley 16:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely related to "knowing little" and anyway not worth a separate title here: thanks for your most interesting comment on my own talk page with its welcome news; I've replied more fully there. -- Hoary 01:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

New RfC
You really need to find a co-certifier for your RfC, someone who had also sought to resolve the specific dispute. My participation has been too tangential to fulfill that role, I believe. -Will Beback 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. If nobody involved is inclined to do so then the RFC should laps.  I suspect that one will appear.   Midgley 10:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks
It is usually best not to remove personal attacks against yourself, especially when they're made on someone else's talk page. I think that Pansophia is being incivil, but I don't think you have the right to remove our names from the message he left on his page. I think it only serves to escalate the situation. JoshuaZ is trying to sort the situation out, and any future arbitration against Pansophia will deal with his personal remarks. It also seems a little hypocritical considering that you just referred to him as "unbalanced" and "ill" on Talk:Kaiser Permanente. Rhobite 14:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a sustained pattern, it should not be encouraged. There is a non-policy but reasonable body of opinion and essay  suggesting that course of action.  And the appearance of illness, as opposed to rational activity in pursuit of an achievable goal, or even a continuing demonstration of feeling, is actually there.  It isn't possible to diagnose on the basis of reading what is written on the 'Net, but that content is suggestive.  Whatever one does this is a mess, and will continue to be so - it is easy for unreasonable behaviour to cause trouble and less easy for reasonable behaviour to solve it.  Midgley 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that personal attacks are uncivil and should not be tolerated. That includes your unwarranted attack on me, Midgley, where you falsely accused me of beng Gfwesq.  We are both lawyers, so we must be the same person?  That is your logic?  How dare you?MollyBloom 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Psuedoscience Barnstar
Kudos on the Pseudoscience Barnstar. I love the subtle irony of the image; it's very clever. Because, of course, we have the pseudoscientists of the past to thank for the spherical earth theory. I'm with you on that. Here's to thinking outside the box! --Splidje 14:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)