Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/War of the Bavarian Succession/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:10, 27 April 2010.

War of the Bavarian Succession

 * Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A war without battles, but with thousands of casualties. Read on! Another wikigap. I've also combined notes and citations in one section. The first time a source is cited, I've included the full citation; subsequently, I've used a shortened version. If the same source and page are cited sequentially, I've used the named templates. As always, I look forward to your comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. No dabs, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments: (all v. minor)
 * Caption for "Charles II August, Duke of Zweibrücken": "Prussi", missing an "a" on the end.
 * Thanks. fixed.
 * "Nauendorf captured its officers, 110 men, 476 horses, 240 wagons of flour, and 13 transport wagons, which were subsequently burned" - unclear whether the wagons of flour and the transport wagons were burned, or just the latter. I'd assumed the latter, but the next bit made me think I might be wrong. (I'm really hoping that the officers and men weren't!)
 * Probably if it included the officers and men, the text would have said "who were burned but I've removed the bit a bout the wagons and flour, because I'm not sure from the source if the wagons were burned or the flour and the wagons. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Gaston Bodart, in his analysis of Austrian casualties, is more specific: Five Austrian generals..." Is it right to follow the colon with a capital letter? (NB: I'm unsure, but it looked odd.)
 * As I understand the rule, if the bit after the colon is a full sentence, it's capitalized. In the next usage, the bit after the colon is a list, and not capitalized.
 * I've never seen that rule. Full sentences are usually preceded by a semicolon, without an opening capital letter. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Habsburg lands could be carved off the empire by a Catherine's diplomatic knife" The "a" is probably a typo.
 * yes a typo. Fixed. Thanks very much for reading! Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you say, a really interesting war!
 * Support. I'm happy with the changes made, and although not a specialist on the sources, I'd say that the balance of old and new, combined with the further reading, looks respectable. I'd support on that basis.

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaning Oppose I really like the article. My problem here is with the sources, many of which are seriously out of date. Citing figures like Henderson and Carlyle (!) when there is much more modern scholarship on the topic seems out of place. Can the article not include more standard reference material? Eusebeus (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your problems with the old sources. Gaston Bodart is also "elderly" but it is still a standard of the literature on 18th century military losses. The point of including Henderson and Carlyle with Berenger and Blanning is to point out that the topic has been of interest (albeit minor) for a long time.  Carlyle's discussion is quite colorful, far moreso than anyone else's, and an advantage of the old sources is they include lots of family/genealogical details that the newer sources omit. I've added some new sources to replace some of the old ones.  It makes the citations and bibliography more complicated, but... Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Very well done. Now go work on your dissertation! Eusebeus (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  for now, changed to Neutral (see below). The prose needs going over; at the moment it veers alarmingly in places between nob-squad pomposity ("A second concern revolved around the Imperial dignities") and modern slang ("Two key hold-outs", "rookie"). Germanic? word order etc evident in places - "the Bavaria" etc. "a generation of peace and relative prosperity that began with his ascension and ended with his death.[7]" - try "accession". There's a spelling mistake in the first para "maneuvered", and plenty more later.  Punctuation:"This kind of action characterized the entire war; there were no major battles, but instead, the war consisted of a series...." etc. In general I felt the prose did not read well. The elderly sources may contribute to the problem. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go over the prose again, but I've got to point out that "rookie" is not a new word at all...If you read Maria Theresa's note, which is in the footnote, you'll see that is the word she used. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * She was writing in American English? You'd better tell the OED; they think the word is first recorded in 1892. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly. ;)  "On dit que vous avez été si content de Nauendorf, d’un recrue Carlstätter ou hongrois qui a tué sept hommes, que vous lui avez donné douze ducats;..."  recrue=Neuling  .  It's been in the German language for, oh, since the Grimm brothers wrote their dictionary.  Goethe used it, Lessing, etc., and it predates them, according to the Grimm. I've asked a French speaker for a second opinion.  Perhaps you would prefer the word neophyte? or novitius?  homo novus  rookie was the best word I could come up with in English.  I'm happy to use something more nob-squaddish, if you'd prefer. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a chart on the talk page that describes the sources, and content. See if you think it is still unbalanced to the old sources?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Denobbing and sources. I've "denobbed" the text.  Long sentences are broken up. I disagree on the use of ascend, but I've taken it out because I'm not falling on the sword over it.  Also, see the talk page re balance of old and new sources, and also a list of additional sources.  Most of the discussion of this war occurred in the 1780s. By the early 1800s, the big discussions had petered out in the face of the Napoleonic Wars, which seemed to preoccupy people's imagination more.  There continued to be some literature in the 19th century, but very little until Oscar Criste's work in early 1900.  After that, a hiatus until the 1970s–1980s. There is a thesis on Charles Theodore and the war, but it had a very small press run (Edwin Mellen Press), and is hard to find. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article uses US spelling, and "maneuvered" is correct. I am not offended by "rookie" in this context: 1892 is not yesterday, and we are quoting from a private letter. "Recruit" does not work, because Nauendorf was an officer in his thirties by then. I suppose we could use "tyro", which is an older word for rookie. It has been around since 1611. It's a lot rarer than "rookie" though today. (By the way, "ascension" was fine.) -- JN 466  06:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its a US/UK thing, but you will see the same search with "accession" produces over 4 times as many, and the "ascension"s seem mostly from the ancient world or East Asia. You could use "recruit" in inverted commas perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the ascension/accession thing entirely (reworded the sentence) so it is no longer an issue. The translation seems fine.  If I use the word novice, it's too conventual, if tyro, it's too obscure.  Recruit is the wrong word, in the context, and recrue does mean "rookie".    Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to neutral on this as the prose is still too jumpy and convoluted to support - look at the first two paragraphs of the "background" section for example. This is not well explained. If the war was really the last old-style 18th century war, as it says at the end, isn't this worth mentioning in the lead?  Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I had not noticed it, and I added a bit to the lead to address this issue. Thanks for bringing that up.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: On the question of sources, raised above: I can make no comment on reliability, but speaking from an outside (non Milhist) perspective, it does not seem to me that the use of ancient sources has necessarily been excessive. About three-quarters of 80 citations to English-language sources are to modern (post-1970) sources. Unless essential modern texts have been omitted, or the information cited to the older sources is proven to be outdated or discredited, this seems defensible. I have frequently mixed old and new sources in my own articles, and of course the newer sources are often themselves dependent on the older. On a very trivial point, ref [58] requires a page number. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. For the sake of disclosure, I asked Brian if he would take a look, as non military history person, and see what he thought of the sources.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'll do a copy-edit.
 * "Joseph, who co-ruled with his mother Empress Maria Theresa, considered the Bavarian territory as a plum that would enhance the wealth, prestige and power of the family." I wouldn't use "plum" here, as this makes it appear as though Bavaria had been the eponymous plum in the "plum fuss". This is not so; the sources I have seen attribute the name "plum fuss" to the fact that the soldiers had to live off the land – plums formed a significant part of their diet. -- JN 466  06:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JN. I've fixed this.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * his wife, Maria Amalia, was the sister of Charles VI's and Joseph I, Holy Roman Emperor, and daughter of Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor. Could you double-check this? According to Maria_Amalia_of_Austria, she was Joseph's daughter. -- JN 466  18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Max Joseph's mother was Maria Amalia of Austria, but not the Maria Amalia that Charles August wanted to marry. MJ's sister married the elector of Saxony, and MJ married the elector of Saxony's sister.   Charles II August married the daughter of Max Joseph's sister (who had married the elector of Saxony), and the sister of the current elector, who was MJ's nephew. His brother in law had died after only a few months' reign and  ... well that's too complicated.  Max Joseph's sister was Charles August's mother in law.  Try looking here, at D4.  I don't think the wikiarticle is correct.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this where a note would come in handy? One that isn't in the footnotes? Let me know, and I'll write it ( but I'll need help with coding, because I don't know how to make a separate set of notes).  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's too many Josephs, Charleses and Marias here.  I had a look on German WP:, , . Also here: "Karl Albrecht, Kurfürst von Bayern, 1742 (als Karl VII.) röm.-deutscher Kaiser ... vermählt 1722 mit Maria Amalia von Österreich (1701–1756), Tochter von Kaiser Joseph I. -- JN 466  20:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * see talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Support I've finally finished that proofread and copyedit. One sentence we might still want to fix: ''According to the 3 January agreement between Joseph and Charles Theodore, 15,000 Austrian troops occupied Mindelheim, ultimately more territory than the convention had granted. '' We are talking about a "convention" and an "agreement"; if they are the same, that could be made clearer. Otherwise – a comprehensive and well-written article bringing European history of 200+ years ago to life. -- JN 466  21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed that. Thanks very much for your efforts, JN. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Query: have you pinged the previous opposers? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, last night and this a.m. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Two have since responded with supports. I'm waiting on Johnbod. He hasn't listed other issues, so I don't know if he's satisfied, or has more. JN is still planning to do a copy edit if he gets to it.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see one support-- what am I missing? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This one. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments  Made a few tweaks, but I'm curious about the lack of capitalization of French noble titles, i.e. duc, etc. When I see these used in English-language works they're always capitalized, perhaps by parallel treatment with English noble titles. But how are they rendered in French-language works?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the same capitalization and wording as the source on the titles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Support article has improved recently. Ucucha 01:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Comments Ucucha 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "By the terms of the 1650 Peace of Westphalia"—not 1648?
 * It looks odd to refer to France as "she" and Prussia as "it".
 * "was instead a mésalliance"—a what?
 * it was a bunch of treaties, but I did change the date to 1648. Changed France  from she to it.  Misalliance. Or Mismarriage.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should explain that to the unsuspecting reader.

Ucucha 23:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "According to the 3 January agreement"—this agreement has not been introduced.
 * I added a citation-needed tag to a paragraph at the end of the article.
 * I think the article should make more clear that Charles Thedore eventually did keep Bavaria.
 * I can certainly see Johnbod's concern about the prose. I think I improved it a bit, but another pair of eyes wouldn't hurt.
 * "Jens-Florian Ebert. "Nauendorf, Friedrich August Graf." Die Österreichischen Generäle 1792–1815. Accessed 15 October 2009"—should this have an external link?
 * Sources all seem reliable. Images:
 * File:MaximilianIII.jpg, File:Karl_III._August_Christian_(Pfalz-Birkenfeld-Zweibrücken).jpg need authors and approximate dates.
 * no artists on those portraits. JN will be back tomorrow re prose.  At this point, I have it memorized.  Added citation where it was needed, and added a link. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment'. The way the referencing/citations are done looks really strange; each published source ends up being listed twice, once in Citations and then again in Bibliography, but why? Also, author names are given firstname lastname in Citations, but lastname firstname in Bibliography. I don't like that at all. I'll take a closer look at the article later today or tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is consistent throughout the article. the first time the source is mentioned, I use the full citation, first name, last name, etc.  After that I abbreviate the ref.  The full citation appears in the bibliography, in bibliographic format. See here. the only thing I do differently from this is periods instead of commas because reviewers go postal if I don't. So, you may not like it, but this is what I do. See also Citations and reliability.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that it's consistent, I'm just saying I don't like it and I can't see the point of it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely happy with some of the prose, for instance "Simultaneous to Charles' coronation in Frankfurt, though, his Bavarian capital city of Munich capitulated to the Austrians to avoid being plundered by Maria Theresa's troops". Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither am I convinced by some of the captions (I'll say nothing of the alt text). For instance, File:Kurfürst Karl Theodor (Bayern).jpg has as its caption "Charles IV Theodore, the legal heir, needed unencumbered territory that he could bequeath to his illegitimate children", but is that actually a painting of Charles IV Theodore, or of someone else? The general story of Charles' intentions ought to be included in the article, not put into a caption. The caption should be telling me something about the image. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The general story of CT's intentions is in the article. I disagree on the images: I see them as a another way of telling the story, otherwise, why include them?  So I use captions to reinforce the text.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'm afraid that I'm likely to end up opposing this article's promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, your right to do, although an editor's chosen citation/bibliographic style is not actionable. As for captions, I've done them in this way since Unification of Germany last June (July?), and you've not said anything yet. Is this a recent antipathy you've developed on captions? Or have you just not noticed? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall looking at any of your other nominations, but let me encourage you to try and keep personal animosity out of this discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * well that explains why it hasn't come up before. I wasn't aware that animosity had crept into my tone of voice, and I certainly apologize for that. I suspect that most people will tell you I'm a mellow person and often a voice of reason in contentious discussions. As for captions, I don't see the point of including lots of pictures of dead white men just for the sake of including lots of pictures of dead white men. Much better to include pictures that enhance/tell the story.   Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to list the prose problems here, or on the talk page? For instance, would you not agree that at best "In the course of his career, Charles Theodore had acquired a celebrated secretary with the Florentine noble, Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806), who had been Voltaire's secretary" is ambiguous? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * article talk page? Sure and I'd be grateful for your help on the prose. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by MisterBee1966
 * I think the article would benefit from a brief opening statement telling the reader what this was all about. I therefore had a look at the German version and translated its lead (sorry for my English) "Was caused by the Austrian entitlement (claim?) on Lower Bavaria and Upper Palatinate after the Bavarian line of the House of Wittelsbach deceased in 1777. The consequence was that the Duchy of Bavaria should have transferred to the palatinate line. It is the last of the Kabinettskriege of the Early modern period." MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added bits here and there in the lead. See if that works for you.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * yes better


 * "...and when Russia did not, the Hasburgs lost" what is Hasburg? Should it be Habsburg? Look for two occurences of Hasburg MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * link "Status quo" MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * link "vis-a-vis" MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * THANKS! done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * section "Change in warfare". I like how in the previous section you motivated the cost Prussia had with 33 million florins and Austria with 65 million florins by comparison to the annual revenue of 50 million florins. In the section "Change in warfare" I am a bit lost. First you introduced the Reichsthaler without telling me what the conversion rate is. Second, the sentence "After the Seven Years War, the Habsburg military also shrank, from 201,311 in 1761 to 163,613 in 1775. In preparing for a second summer's campaign, Joseph's army grew from the 195,108 effectives of the summer 1778 to 308,555 in Spring 1779." The numbers mentioned here are those expenditures or men in arms? It is unclear to me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've clarified it. Men in arms.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * support very nice article. A lot of work went into this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * rechecked citations for consistency. These seem okay to me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Second sentence: "The war had no battles and only a few minor skirmishes, but several thousand casualties from disease and starvation." The final clause links with which bit? "had ..."? It's a bit of a jolt, and to "have" casualties is odd. Needs another verb here.
 * Opposite issue: "Charles IV Theodore, a scion of a senior branch of the House of Wittelsbach, held the closest claim of kinship, but he also had no legitimate children, only illegitimate ones." Remove "he also?
 * "Other states became involved to maintain the balance of power, a goal similar to that of the earlier War of the Austrian Succession in the 1740s and the Seven Years War that followed it." Can a war have a single goal? Isn't a war fought by opposing sides?
 * Instead of the not-well-known word "suzerainty" (which has to be linked for us), is there a plainer, more common word?
 * "and could block, or at least impede, Francis's election"—either? The "at least" is vague for me. So you mean they could block, but could just impede if they wished? Unclear distinction between ultimate power and possible behaviour. "and could impede or even block"?
 * "became moot: He left"—h?
 * "to succeed him and several ambitious men prepared to carve his patrimony into pieces, as they had tried to do in 1741 to Maria Theresa's."—comma after "him"? Did Therasa have patrimony? Or is it her pieces that back-refers to?

Do audit the whole thing for long sentences where the last clause doesn't flow properly from the foregoing part of the sentence. This is a repeated pattern thus far. Tony  (talk)  03:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have gone through the whole thing again and tried to make sentences shorter, and less complicated see if this works.  `Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not engaging prose IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The long snaking sentences make this a tedious read. These three for example:
 * 1) Some historians maintain the active negotiator was Max Joseph's widow, Maria Anna Sophia of Saxony, others assert it was not Max Joseph's widow but Max Joseph's sister, who was also Charles August's mother-in-law, Maria Antonia, the widow of the previous Elector Saxony, and mother of the reigning Elector.
 * 2) Although Charles August, sometimes called duc de Deux-Ponts (a French translation of Zweibrücken, or two bridges), was a French client, he had especially good relations with the Saxon Electors: Charles August's mother- and brother-in-law wanted to ensure that Maria Amalia's husband received his rightful inheritance.
 * 3) When it became clear that other monarchs of Europe were not going to acquiesce to a de facto partition of Bavaria, Joseph and his foreign minister, Anton, Count von Kaunitz, scoured the Habsburg realm for troops and concentrated 600 guns and an 180,000–190,000-man Austrian army in Bohemia, Moravia, and Austrian Silesia: this army amounted to most of Austria's 200,000 effectives, leaving much of the border regions with the Ottoman Empire under-guarded.
 * I've shortened a lot more sentences this afternoon. JN and I have both scoured this article for my usual prose problems in the past week. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I wonder if we should drop the sentence "During the visit, he had enticed Voltaire's secretary, the Florentine noble, Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806), into his own employment.", given that the reference to Collini has now gone from the Carlyle quote and Collini doesn't turn up anywhere else in the article. -- JN 466  09:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a phrase giving it more context. It was a coup for the duke to get this man as his secretary. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Review by Charles Edward

This is a very interesting article. I read it a couple weeks ago when it was first listed here and almost reviewed it then. I am well read on this topic and am pleased to inform you it is very comprehensive! I do a have a few comments though:
 * Internal link for "gout"?
 * done


 * Citations needed (these should be easy to find, if not let me know, I can dig them out of my library)
 * "As the Duke of Bavaria, Max Joseph was the prince of one of the largest states in the German-speaking portion of the Holy Roman Empire."
 * that was pretty well cited already, but I added more. Same below


 * "As a Prince-elector, he stood in the highest social category of the Empire, with broad legal, economic, and juridical rights."
 * "The House of Habsburg-Lorraine needed a wider sphere of influence in the German-speaking parts of the Holy Roman Empire."
 * ditto, but I added more


 * "The diplomatic realignment in 1756 had tied French foreign policy in Central Europe to Vienna; despite this restructuring, there existed at Versailles, and in France generally, a strong anti-Austrian sentiment."
 * that is cited to Berenger. I can add more but I don't think it's necessary.  Blanning, Okey, Simms, etc.
 * I added a cite to Blanning. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "When his small force encountered Wunsch's, which was more than triple its size, Nauendorf greeted the Prussians as friends;"
 * that was cited at the end of the next sentence. I duplicated the ref, but that seems ridiculous, since now they are the same ref at the end of two sentences. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * References are excellent
 * Prose if engaging
 * Images check out
 * Alt text present

Bravo! If you can get those citations I'd be glad to support. Great job on this article. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 19:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Another fine article for the encyclopedia. :) &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.