User talk:SilkTork/Jan 2007 - March 2006

Robert F. WIlliams
(i feel like i'm interrupting, but SilkTork messaged me, re an issue, and i wanted to thank him. Thank you. I'm just new and i posted a scanned copy of an authentic hard-copy document in my possession> It is a wonderment to me, because i have this collection of odd paperworks, including actual vintage FBI fliers signed by Hoover. When i came on to Wikipedia, i typed in a few of the names, and the a page on Robert F. WIlliams came up.  I was estatic that a piece of my beloved collection  helped corroborate an interesting (controversial) episode of US history> so i joiined wki and uploaded it, with the help of my housemate. We did it wrong, i guess.  BUT I was really just too attached to my document, i guess... so i got upset when someone spruced up the  upload... which was GIANT.  But we worked it out.  I still have my document, and the upload is still giant, but i'm not mad at anyone for trying to fix it, anymore. I just hadn't understood the change. I think the copy of the warrant is still giant, by the way. Anyone who wants can fix it, and i promise i won't have a tantrum. :) However, the document itself is what my grandfather used to call: "an elephant  in the room."  That means that there's something hugely odd and mentionable, but never discussed... "unmentionable" documentation of past (and possibly current US history/policy). So maybe it's good that it was so big for a while on the site.  we can shrink it now.

Oh, i read that you are being treated for a small brain tumor. I'm sorry. My life-long family friend, Gen. Jack Quinn, had a brain tumor the size of a ping pong ball, and it was successfully removed last year... in conjunction with chemo. My advice to you is to keep your strength up during chemo... by JUICE. Drink lotsa C juice drinks, with carrot juice to gently detox,a nd spinach/wheatgrass for iron and oxygen. Juice is absorbed into the bloodstream more efficiently than pills or even powdered vitamin supplements because it's food and naturally assimilated into the body. :) So that's my advice. I actually beat a bad bout of Hep B/C combinef with a juice regimen: wheatgrass, carrot, pineapple, ginger,papaya, guava, mango, C juices, beets, etc. (not in one drink) What you take into your body helps as much as what you abstain from... in my case of liver probs: alcohol, sour cream, and iron> :)  take care. l, sarah daugherty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarahMdaugherty (talk • contribs).

Thanks for the comments Sarah. The choice with my tumor is an operation (up the nose!) or long term drug treatment. We have chosen the drug treatment and I'm very happy with it. And, like you, I like to eat and drink fresh vegetables and fruit. Bananas are my favourite fruit. Lovely! SilkTork 08:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Call
Hey, just wanted to let you know I respected your comment on Articles for deletion/Eternal Decision. Sometimes I get heated on those things and forget the inherent lack of gravity of the situation we're in here. It takes somebody coming in from the outside and sizing it up with a level-head to get my perspective back in order. Which you did. so thanks. May you have good health, --Tractorkingsfan 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The nature of internet communication in general and the nature of Wiki in particular can generate a lot of stress. We've all been in a situation where we are reacting HUGELY to something very minor. Have your say and fight for your corner for sure. But work in some other area of Wiki or sit down and have a nice cup of tea when someone starts getting personal or acting like a dick. Keep well. SilkTork 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I should expect such sage words from a man who has kicked it with Lemmy.  That had to be ridiculous.  Cheers my friend, --Tractorkingsfan 08:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, not to turn this into a chatroom, but did you ever see the Dead back in the day? I'm 25 and try to keep up with the scene as much as I can, but I feel like I missed the seminal shit, and always want to know what it must have been like.  Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 08:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I never saw the Dead. Didn't see too many American bands. The group I was most pleased to have seen was Led Zeppelin. Fucking awesome. Sat out on Oxford Street overnight to get tickets. We got front row seats (yes, there was seating at rock concerts in those days!). MC gave a warning announcement about the heavy amplification which served me well for all concerts since: "For those of you lucky - or unlucky - enough to get front row seats we suggest you go get some toilet roll, wet it and shove it in your ears." Try it. After the concert you pull out the plugs and you can hear your friends talking. And there's no buzzing the next day. SilkTork 17:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello hello
I just wanted to say hi. It's strange, but I never even looked at your userpage the whole time I've conversed with you on the natal chart talk page. You seem like a really interesting guy. I'm so sorry about the brain tumor. Cancer is awful. Hope everything is well with you, and I wish you the best. Thanks again for the help with the external link. Sam 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The link seemed a lost cause from the start, and even when given as much help, advise and protection as possible she was not able to justify herself. Please let me know if the link appears again, and we'll look at putting a block on her. Regards. SilkTork 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Barry Wood's page
Hey there SilkTork. I went looking for my old mate Barry Wood and noticed his page now points to Trading Spaces. I know he is best known for that, but he has made other notable contributions, and is actually now part of a second TV show. Any problem reverting his page to pre-redirect? Thank you! Ed [ Ekbeale 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ]

Hi Ed. Thanks for the message. Barry doesn't appear to be notable enough to have his own page. He is listed as a presenter on Trading Spaces, and that appears to be about it. The page on Barry consisted of a couple of sentences which in a sense revealed his lack of notability. However, if you feel that he has done enough in his life to be regarded as notable we could put the Barry Wood article up for discussion on Articles for deletion to get a wider view. SilkTork 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure that would be perfect. He has accomplished at least as much as the other designers whose pages are still available from the Trading Spaces page. We can either remove them as well, or restore the BW (id) page. Ekbeale 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The others are now listed on Articles for deletion/Douglas Wilson (interior designer) SilkTork 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bloomsbury, London
Hi, thanks for messaging. I agree with you about the top heavy and the template box. I reverted your image from the centre because it left a huge gap inbetween the intro and the contents box on my screen. I think its important that an article have some quality images throughout the article but it just seemed messy with it centered at that particular point with the article. Perhaps it would be possible to move the image to the left or right side of the article. If you look across wikipedia its not very often, infact quite rare to find images, except very long ones centered. Furthermore it is "guidelines" not to have anything before the content except the introduction and either an image or a template box. In this case the image is the map of bloomsbury in the ridiculously large template. Im all for the image of the British Museum inset on the article, but think it would be better after the contents? I have just added the image back, but after the contents, how does it look on your screen? If you think it looks bad where it is then feel free to revert. I think generally the article will be easier to tidy up/improve the style as more textual content is added in the future. LordHarris 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I know what you mean about the space. I did force the image larger - this does, however, mean that not all browsers get the forced size; some will get a smaller size with the resultant space that you mention. I hadn't considered that. I will get in touch with the London Project who are responsible for the template. It will have the same negative impact on all London district articles. Much of the information is non-essential. Geographic articles that have been featured articles very rarely have had templates that large as a lead template. In fact I can only think of two - Dorset and Weymouth (curiously both British - I suppose the same guy is responsible for the template!). I will play around with the lead a bit more. An image may appear there now and again (or may not). Don't worry. I don't stay with articles. After I'm through you can revert back if you don't like what I have done. I don't keep a watch on stuff. Regards. SilkTork 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. The thing with not piping London Boroughs originally comes from when I changed a lot of London district articles, which had a format beginning with "X is a place in the London Borough of Y", which I thought was inelegant for several reasons. I piped some of the borough names, so that "London" and the borough name could both be in the first sentence without having "London" twice, but this was reverted and I left it at that, content to change "place" to "area" or "suburb", which seemed like better words. My feeling was that London boroughs are too specific and obscure (at least to people outside London) to put in the first sentence, and "area of n/s/e/w London" was more informative, but I decided it wasn't that important. As for the Bloomsbury article in general, you're right that mere lists would be better replaced with some descriptive content, although we don't want the article to get too long - we are only talking about one part of central London. Lfh 12:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about the boroughs not being significant enough to appear in the first sentence. I haven't approached the London Project yet, but plan to anyway regarding the large template which contains information more relevant to a city template than an area of a city. This would also be a matter to raise with them. Are you a member of the project? SilkTork 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not, I considered joining but I only contribute to a few articles like Bloomsbury, the British Museum and UCL. Anyway good work on the bloomsbury article - it flows and reads a lot better ;) LordHarris 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks LordHarris. I only intended to play with the article for a moment - but I've grown fond of it. And I may play around with other London articles as I love London. Are you any good with Templates? Would you know how to turn the Services section into a direct link to the Category:London organisations, removing the three lines about Fire, Police and Ambulance? SilkTork 17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch!
Come on now, don't get upset. I immediately explained my reasons on the template talk page. You only needed to look there. MRSC • Talk 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes, I was a bit pissed this morning. It felt like a blunt revert and an avoidance of the real issue. I've never been in favour of reverts. A revert isn't someone taking up the baton and carrying it to the next stage. A revert feels like someone is throwing the baton back. A revert is something done when a vandal has damaged a page. I don't feel like a vandal - I feel like an editor who has an issue with a template. But, yes, I over-reacted. There is plenty of time. And it really doesn't matter if the template remains in one state or another while the discussion takes place. It's just that, on a personal level, I would have preferred the template to be in the state that was - for me - less problematic. Your revert came dead on top of another one, so it hit me hard. I'm cool now. What will be will be. SilkTork 16:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your gracious reply. No harm is done as far as I'm concerned. MRSC • Talk 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordinate category delete nominations
Hi, I spotted your recent Cfd's for categories by coordinates, and wanted to inform you about WikiProject Geographical coordinates and Categorization of location. There are apparently a lot of people involved in this, so check it out before you find/nominate any more of these. I'm not necessarily pushing to keep them all, I just want to direct you to the source. --Vossanova o&lt; 21:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea what those categories were about, so thought I'd bring them to people's attention. I haven't voted for deleting or keeping the categories. I simply don't understand them. As part of the process I usually put a comment on the responsible editors talk page. I haven't done so yet. But I will do before the evening is through. Regards. And thanks for getting in touch. SilkTork 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I updated my comment on the Cfd. The WikiProject Geographical coordinates doesn't necessarily support these categories - they're working on adding coordinates to article templates, something totally different.  But you found the guy who created them, so that should make for fair discussion. --Vossanova o&lt; 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

settlements
I see you are are trying to change 'settlements' to 'human communities'. This includes changing the existing category structure and the contents of several articles to suit this purpose. I believe this constitutes a 'bad faith effort' to get around the decisions made by CfD. 'Bad faith' means just this: ignoring the decisions made by CfD. The article on 'community' shows this term can in no way be used to include such human habitats as cities, towns, metro areas--all of which are human settlements, the WP term agreed upon for this purpose. Hmains 06:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith? I'm lost. What did you mean? SilkTork 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see you are reverting my edits. We have a disagreement on how to categorise. Is that bad faith? In what way? I assume we both wish to organise Wiki in the best possible way. I think you are a well intentioned editor who has a slightly different way of organising matters to me. You appear to feel that "settlements" has a meaning which encompasses larger communities. I don't see that. SilkTork 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has yet bothered to deal with the fact that the use of 'settlement' in Wikipedia is not supported by any dictionaries, and appears to be pushing a neologism. If you want to change the definition of 'settlement' in Category:Settlements, please provide reliable sources supporting that use in the face of the dictionary definitions. -- Donald Albury 11:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in your view of settlements which looks like an original point of view. This edit in which an official, widely accepted dictionary definition is altered into your personal view is very questionable. We are all working in the same direction here. We want the same things. Lets talk. Lets find an acceptable terminology for a group of people living together. You seem unhappy with community - even though it is the most widely used terminology and is the dictionary definition accepted by most authorities. Why are you so unhappy with using the correct terminology. Why do you wish to use an incorrect word? Please. Let's talk. I am very confused! SilkTork 13:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not important what I think; what is important is what WP has collectively decided: 1) the use of 'settlements' as the collective term for cities, towns, villages is long standing in WP and is used by many editors; 2) attempts through CfD to change to another term have failed--the consensus decision is that 'settlements' is the best term for this purpose; 3) depopulating settlements categories to get around the CfD decision is 'bad faith'; 4) changing article text to justify such changes is 'bad faith'. Hmains 16:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your view of things. The Cfd decision that you cite was a failed suggestion to change the term "settlement" to "populated areas". I see no other consensus. And past consensus is no certainty of future consensus, especially when the use of the term settlement to include large, settled urban areas such as towns and cities is against agreed global usage. I'm not sure at this stage why you continue to insist on this term when the term "community" is the one that is normally used. Lets have a discussion, rather than you accusing me of "bad faith". I suppose you are aware of Etiquette, Civility and Assume good faith. But it's worth repeating that I believe we have the same intention: to organise the categories in Wiki in the most useful way. To repeat that I think we can work together on this. And to repeat my suggestion we talk about the best way forward. I have not reverted any of your reverts of my editing. I don't think that would be constructive. I request you consider that act in the light of your repeated accusations of my "bad faith". You have said you don't agree with my editing. I have done no more editing. I have suggested we talk. Where is the bad faith? Let's talk. Why do you feel settlement is a better term than community ? SilkTork 19:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not repeating 'bad faith' accusations. You asked me what I meant by my use of term.  I answered you, which forced me to use the term.  I repeat: "It is not important what I think; what is important is what WP has collectively decided: 1) the use of 'settlements' as the collective term for cities, towns, villages is long standing in WP and is used by many editors; 2) attempts through CfD to change to another term have failed--the consensus decision is that 'settlements' is the best term for this purpose".  As far as my use, I saw that the term was already being used in WP so when I needed a term for the purpose of grouping cities, towns, etc, I did not invent a new WP term; I re-used what was in WP use and extended its WP use further. You saw a term in use in WP you did not like/understand and proceeded to do WP deletions to get rid of it. Big difference.  As far as its non-WP use, a Google search on 'human settlements' (which is what we are talking about and which I would personally prefer to just 'settlements') found 2,380,000 entries. A random sampling of these entries does see some discussions of very small or pioneer places, but also many discussions of all human populated areas rom cities on down. Please look for yourself.  Google search on just 'settlements' does not produce the same result, which may be why some people get confused.  But it not my decision that WP has collectively chosen to use just 'settlements' instead 'human settlements', the latter of which to me would be more direct and less ambiguous as well as supported by current practice, as shown by Google.  Thanks Hmains 20:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

32,600,000 for settlements 2,380,000 for human settlements 213,000,000 for communities 940,000,000 for community 104,000,000 for settlement 25,400,000 for human settlement 515,000,000 for human community 113,000,000 for human communities
 * Here's what I found:

To me, settlement or human settlement seems a better description of a place where people live or have settled, whereas community implies a developed town. Of course, I have no real expertise, little knowledge of Wikipedia rules other than the basic ones concerning article structure and content, and no clue why anyone wants me to help give advice. I agree with SilkTork's general plan for division of categories below human geography, but I personally favor the term "human settlement". Unfortunately, I'm still confused as to what is being debated and why. --queso man 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorization dispute
My best bet would be to start a discussion at category talk:Human geography. A deletion discussion often is great to see which way consensus leans, although people might get lambasted for making a point then. You might want to throw out a listing at requests for comments and the appropriate village pump section. Have you looked at Naming conventions (categories) too?

Generally, chose any spot that seems to fit (we've had weirder places before), and direct people there.Circeus 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have now started a discussion at Talk:Human geography, and it was only afterwards that I realised you meant the category rather than the article. But I don't think it matters. And I listed it at requests for comments. I will also ask at the village pump. Thanks again. SilkTork 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Naming conventions (settlements) would be the proper single place for discussion with pointers to it from other places. Hmains 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Settlement v. community
Personally I prefer the term settlement. However, I'd go with the word community if someone really prefered it. Being a geog school teacher, there are sections in our text books entitled Settlement but none entitled community. Generally in my mind, community seems to be a smaller unit. I would like to say that it was a USA v. UK lignuistic issue but actually I think you're both british so that's not very helpful. Choose one or the other and be done with it, it's not worth the grey hairs to debate it at any length. Thank you for asking my advice, just enjoy the real work in finding and adding encylopedic info. SuzanneKn 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That's useful. Thanks. SilkTork 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Settlement discussion moved
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) SilkTork 15:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

settlements plus
Thanks for your most recent note. I too do not wish to be unpleasant in my WP work. In the beginning, I was perturbed by the 3 hours or so of work I had to do to put 'settlements' categories back to they way they were (reflecting both my work and the work of others) prior to your changes. This led to my words that upset you. I am sorry. I did not change your work that was not settlement related as it showed (in my mind) helpful improvement to WP. Which we both try to do. By the way, what I have found since I came across the existing use of 'settlements', reflecting any size human living area (at the municipal level), and my then extended its use to other countries and U.S. states, is that most editors did not object or even liked it, but a very few had highly emotional, not rational, problems with it. It seems they were/are offended to think they might be living in or around large, urban, even sophisticated 'settlements'--as if to just use the term itself would put them in a backwards society or make them primitive people! The word did not alarm me when I found its current use in WP as I am used to seeing 'settlements' with adjectives when referring to small, new things, such as 'primitive settlements' 'frontier settlements', 'small settlements', etc. So logically to me, a full blown settlement could well be a city and such. It seemed to fit regardless what several general dictionaries seem to say. Maybe we need a specialized geographical dictionary or something. But as I said, it is up to WP collectively what terms the editors choose to use. Right now it  is 'settlements'; 'tomorrow', it could be something different, hopefully better if that is what is called for. Wishing you well. Hmains 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pure tone audiometry page!
Hi, we were wondering whether you would be able to undivert our page for us please, as we're happy for people to see it now even though it's still a working progress.

Thanks for your help!

PTApete&co —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PTApete&co (talk • contribs) 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Excellent. The article is now live. I have introduced what are called wikilinks so readers can easier cross-reference information. This is done by putting before the word or phrase on which wikipedia already has an article, and  at the end. I have also started a reference section. You will have references for your article. All you need now do is insert at the end. I have put in a couple of images. You may introduce more and/or replace the ones I have used. You may also put in some better or additional external links. If you need any more help, let me know. SilkTork 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PTApete &Co and Pure Tone Audiometry page
Thank you for your help. We will need to change some of your changes, cause our page hasn't been marked by our tutor yet. We have to show it too another group next week, and then give our tutor the link the week after that. We will note them down and put them back up after it has been marked, if this is OK with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PTApete&co (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Now that the article is live it is open to be edited by anyone. The article is no longer yours - it belongs to the world. It would be inappropriate for you to put the article back to a prior state for your personal interest. You should direct your tutor to the article on your user page, and then show people the live article and how it has grown since you launched it. I'm sure that your tutor is only interested in marking the content of the article, not in the fact that you have put it in the open section of Wiki. If your tutor has any questions about using Wiki please direct your tutor to me. I love the idea of the project, but if your tutor wishes to use this idea again then some advice on the most appropriate way of doing it might be helpful. Regards SilkTork 11:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tags
Thank you. Our images have disappeared from the main page but our on own user page. They say when you click on the diagram, that we need to put a copyright tag on them I had a look at the copyright tags, but I don't know which one refers to our diagrams, and where to put the tag if I knew which one to stick on. We made the diagrams ourselves, but adapted them from Moore BC. Cochlear Hearing Loss. London: Whurr Publishers; 1998. Can you help? It's a shame to lose the diagrams, as they really help explain the text.PTApete&amp;co 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just added a public domain tag, as one of the other groups has used this. Could you let me know if this is right? I haven't put on the image page that they were made by us but adapted from Moore, but this can be easily changed, and so can the tag if I got it wrong. The tags aren't easy to understand!PTApete&amp;co 13:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I must have a blip on my PC because I can see no trace of a message to you about your images - nor can I see who removed them from your article. So I can't see the reason given for the removal. There may be an issue in regards of how closely you have copied the data that is the basis of your diagrams - the data itself may be copyright, even though you drew the diagram yourself. I did a quick search but I couldn't find the diagrams upon which you based your diagrams. Was the original data in a diagram format? SilkTork 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on the images when viewing our user page, and it had a message in a box saying that they didn't have a copyright tag, and would be deleted unless one was added. The diagrams were visible, I was making some changes to the text and then after I had saved the page, they had gone. The same thing happened today I added prestin into the see also section, and merged dead region and how dead rgions affect audiograms into one section, and even though the text is there in the edit this page, it has disappeared from the live page. I am not sure what I did wrong. It was someone else who created the diagrams, but I am almost 100% certain that these diagrams are based on diagrams in the Moore book. PTApete&amp;co 22:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked again. It appears that you deleted the images yourself, along with a good deal of text. I have restored the article to the state it was in before your last two edits. I then restored an edit by another editor. Your last two edits I have not restored as they appeared to delete material rather than add anything. Sometimes mistakes occur. You roll the mouse and delete text without noticing. The beauty of Wiki is that nothing is lost. We can always roll back to a previous version. It's frustrating that work you did in your last edits has been lost - a more careful look at the edits may reveal a neater way of restoring the material than I have found; but at least at the moment you have the images and lost text back. SilkTork 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I did roll my mouse! PTApete&amp;co 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pure tone audiometry page is finished!!!
Hi.

I have added all our extras bits to the old bits & your bits. The only change we made is changing the Wiki link for "brainstem" to a Wiki link for "auditory brainstem response", as this is the procedure we were referring to, and it gives more info. Hope this is OK.

On our user page the cohclea pic was bigger. Can you see if you like the picture bigger,or as a thumb. Cause I copied and paste the text from our page into the live page, and I forgot we had made it bigger and it was originally a thumb.

There were two duplicates in ours and your external refs, so I combined them. All the others are as they were, except put the name in for Springerlink.com, as it was[1].

I even know how to do a Wiki link for a section within another page, and call it what it needs to be in the text!!! Impressive, hey!

Thanks for our award it is really cool, and for all your help.

I look forward to seeing how the page evolves from here. So technically a Wiki page is never finished!

PTApete&amp;co 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done - I should think you guys are quite pleased with the article. You are right that an article is never finished. People will continue to tinker with it. However, I have a feeling that your article won't have much editing done to it. I have written a few articles which even a year later remain pretty much as I originally wrote them. That's very satisfying - the knowledge that nobody can better what you have done. Check back now and again and take a look at the history page to see if anyone has improved or vandalised (does happen!) your article. Warm regards SilkTork 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pure tone audiometry page!
Hello again. I thought I would see how the PTA page was doing, and someone has added a "this article is not catergorised" tag. I don't understand why, as you catergorised it as otology. Wondered if you could take a look please? It seems a bit trivial, when the stuff above looks rather complicated! PTApete&amp;co 19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. What happened is that on the Revision as of 19:52, 14 March 2007, you merged material from your user page. On your user page version I had shown the Category with a : in front - this is a Wiki code that means the article does not show in the Category. When it went live I removed the :. On that revision the : reappeared, thus the article gave the appearance of being categorised, but it wasn't. The editor who put the uncat tag on the article was using a semi-automatic bot called AWB which searches for problems within an article and either corrects them or points them out. Editors using AWB often work very quickly, so he didn't pay that close attention. A cat with a : in front of it is rather unusual for an article page, such a thing normally only occurs on talk pages or user pages. Anyway - all is now well! SilkTork 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you PTApete&amp;co 08:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)