User talk:Deathphoenix/Archive1

This is an archive of previous discussions. If you wish to leave me a message, you can do so on my main talk page.

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

Clockwork Soul 23:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David Eddings' Malloreon[edit]

Please see here for a discussion as to the correct name for The Malloreon. Now someone will have to change all those references back—maybe you? (Sorry to sound testy, but we've thrashed this issue out, and it's really annoying to find someone just blasting away without checking.) --Phil | Talk 07:54, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for one of the least un-gracious responses I have received in a while. (Whew, am I glad I didn't strop at you about using a global-text-replace which broke that URL ;-) Think the litotes will work? Dunno, have to wait and see. --Phil | Talk 15:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson's Autobiography[edit]

Why are you preaching to the choir? Do you seriously believe I don't want my work edited? Everyking 23:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would you please stop talking about my work in bold like I've made some claim to ownership? I find it very irritating. It is not that my work is somehow special. It is that I believe that what is good should not be changed into what is bad, a standard which applies to all articles, even if my eyes have never looked upon them. However, I believe in community consensus more than anything, so if people want the article reduced to a stub, they can do it—if they have consensus. But I still ought to have a voice and be able to represent the inclusionist POV on the matter. Everyking 23:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Professor in accounting VfD[edit]

Please consider changing your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Professor in accounting, if you see this soon enough: we are supposed to be voting on whether there could ever be an article deserving the title Professor in accounting. If this ends up keep, the result will be a RfD on Professor in accounting, (and a VfD on Accounting scholarship, for that matter). The result of the vote going for Del is not about deleting Accounting scholarship, so your current vote says just that the title you didn't like should be kept. --Jerzy (t) 22:21, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Greetings from JohnTex[edit]

Hi DeathPhoenix (cool name, BTW) - thanks for your help figuring out what to do about Rooster Teeth Productions. As you have already observed, we joined Wikipedia on the same day. I've already run across your name so many times, I would have guessed that you had been here longer. We must happen upon some of the same places, such as VfD. Speaking of which, I see you agreed with me on deleting Back-up Friend, but you think we should keep Glenn. Oh well, I guess I can't expect to bend others to my will 100% of the time. :-) Speaking of which, I see I am clearly in the minority opinion on iPod shuffle. Maybe someone will throw me a sympathy vote? I hope we will get a chance to do some more collaborative editing. Johntex 00:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the sympathy vote. I see one ohter person has voted to delete as well. It looks like I will be on the losing side of the vote, but at least I know I was not completely alone. Johntex 04:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fellow David Eddings fan[edit]

I have the complete Belgariad, Malloreon, the two prequels and the Rivan Codex.

I also have all other books they have written with the sole exeception of High Hunt and The Treasured One. I am currently reading The Elder Gods, and consider Regina's Song and The Losers to be some of the best mainstream books I have ever read. Generally I read fantasy.

Check this quote if you don't believe me

"Ignore the face," Garion told him. "It isn't real. Zandramas is trying to frighten us into madness. The face isn't there. It doesn't even have as much substance as a shadow."

David (& Leigh unacknowledged) EDDINGS, Book 5 of the Malloreon, The Seeress of Kell, Page 314

I also read userfriendly.org, which I only came across about 3 months ago. It features a new cartoon every day and has done since 1997. About 1 month ago I became upto date with it, and have since got involved with the community.

You have voted to delete the article on the creator of userfriendly.org, purely on the basis that lots of new members want to keep it. While I understand that you want people who are involved long term, and not just for one vote, that is not the way to encourage new members to participate. I strongly urge you to reconsider.

Epideme 03:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious withdrawal[edit]

I understand your frustration about vanity articles, but as you can clearly see that is not the case here. I hope that when I go back to check the vote page you have altered your vote as you said.

I would disagree that I am a better David Eddings fan - you may have concentrated on the Belgariad, Malloreon, and Garion (who is a fantastic hero), but I have more eclectic reading tastes, and thus read lots of fantasy. I have read them through twice at least, but that appears to be nowhere near as many times as you.

In my opinion, a lot of David Eddings books have the same storyline - albeit told very well and with different characters - and if his fantasy books were all I judged him on I might be disappointed with some of them which seem little more than rehashes of the Belgariad and Malloreon. However, I cannot overstate how much I enjoyed The Losers and Regina's Song, both fresh books with intriguing and intricate storylines. Don't get me wrong, I like all his fantasy stuff particularly the stuff with Garion in, but I find myself recommending those two mainstream books of his to people (Of course it's not easy to get someone to start reading a story which stretchs across 12 books and has more background information as well).

If you like fantasy, and not just David Eddings, may I recommend Stephen Lawhead, Weis & Hickmen, David Gemmell & R A Salvatore. The best mixture of fantasy and dark humour in my opinion is Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman.

Epideme 03:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you and I will certainly read those articles[edit]

Now that I have "dipped my toe" in editing, you will probably see my name quite frequently.

I look forward to collaborating with you on David Eddings, and thanks once again for your time.

Epideme

Etat Quebecois VfD[edit]

Thanks for your help with the VFD thing. JillandJack 22:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

E-mails?[edit]

Hi, did you send me two e-mails a couple of days ago? If so, I've just found them now, but I don't understand what they are about. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

O.K., sorry for the inconvenience. I only got two e-mails (presumably the second and third), which is why I didn't understand what they were about. As well, they were trapped by my spam filters, so that delayed them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High schools in ...[edit]

Not every high school is notable, therefore is not included into the Wikipedia... as clearly seen from the VFD process. How can categories accomplish the same thing as a list when there is not an article for every high school? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of Ontario Premiers[edit]

Thanks, Death, for making that change. Kevintoronto 00:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Federal elections charts[edit]

Hello, again, Death, my old friend. I’d like to get some consensus on what to do about colours in the elections charts, but I don’t want to get into a revert war, so I’m asking people to express their opinions here before any changes are made. Since you weighed in on this on the Ont premiers page, I'd value your contribution.

I am initiating this discussion because some of the colours that are currently being used are too dark for some monitors so that it is difficult to read the text. The point of adding colours to the charts is to make it easier for readers to derive information from the charts. This goal is foiled by using colours dark enough to obscure the text. The Wikipedia style guide is clear on the issue:

Use colour sparingly. Computers and browsers vary: you cannot know how much colour is presented on the recipient's machine if any. Wikipedia is international: colours have different meaning in different cultures. Too many colours on one page make them look cluttered and unencyclopedic. Use the colour red only for alerts and warnings.

So let’s choose some colours that are light enough that red Wilkilinked text and blue Wikilinked text are both easy to read through.

Please join the discussion at: Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867. Thanks, Kevintoronto 17:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have changed things on the Talk page to incorporate links. I think it helps a lot. I'd support your change for the Liberal Party, too. please add your suggestion. Thanks muchly.Kevintoronto 18:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's a great chart. I couldn't figure out how to do that, so I'll go in and take a look at the code. Now we'll have to see what response we get from the solid colour fans. Thanks again. Kevintoronto 22:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for nudging me on that issue, Death, and for volunteering your services. I've been meaning to try to move things along. I had been waiting for User:The Tom, who in the past changed the colours to the darker ones, but he doesn't seem to be around these days. I've posted a notice on the Cdn discussion page as you suggested, and set up a voting system at Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867. Let's give it a week and see what comes out of it. Keep up the great work you've been doing. Kevintoronto 16:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your idea for automating the colourshift process would sound great if I could understand any of it. It's way over my head - not because of the way you explained it, but because my coding skills are so lacking. I was assuming that it would have to be done the old fashioned way, through tedious manual changes. If you can figure out a way of speeding things up, that would be great. If not, perhaps we can split up the responsibilities. So far, there are only 3 votes, which bothers me a bit. I'd like to have a fair sample so that we have a basis for reverting oif someoen comes along in six months and starts mucking things up again. We'll see how things go over the next week. Kevintoronto 14:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VfD grunt work[edit]

You asked at WP:AN about VfD. Certainly, you can handle any nomination that doesn't end in delete. And it would be a great help. In fact, consistently helping to close keepers is a good way to get nominated for adminship, if that's what you want. (Worked for me!)

Please let me know if you have any questions about the deletion process. dbenbenn | talk 00:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hahaha... thanks for the advice, and I'd be glad to help. I'm not really looking into getting an adminship now (I'm way too new), but down the road, it may be useful for WP:CSDs and reverting vandalism. --Death phoenix 00:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the gruntwork. One thing to remember: when you do a merge or redirect (Rising crescent moon), check "what links here" and fix any resulting double redirects. dbenbenn | talk 17:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Woops, I must have missed that one. I did a double-redirect check on most of them (and fixed one for Synnax, but I must have missed that one. My apologies. --Death phoenix 18:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all. I forget too sometimes. dbenbenn | talk 00:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Dbenbenn, I have a question for you regarding the VfD notices. I've noticed a couple of times that other people blank VfD notices on VfD articles without going through the deletion process. Although the discussion result is keep, should I drop a polite note to the author not to do it again, or should I just let it slide because the article is kept anyway? So far, I've just assumed good faith and not dropped a message (because the blanking is usually done after the five day VfD period), but what's the standard procedure for matters such as this? Thanks for your help. --Death phoenix 07:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey Death. I don't think there's a standard procedure. I usually just let it slide, out of laziness. But if you drop a link to the deletion process at their talk page, that might have the beneficial effect of recruiting more VfD helpers. dbenbenn | talk 00:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In recognition...[edit]

In recognition of your persistent dedication to the community on Wikipedia_talk:Barnstars_on_Wikipedia, I hereby award you with the The Barnstar of Diligence – Clockwork Soul 21:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. You've earned it. – Clockwork Soul 21:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

![edit]

Yes, that is a nifty feature: it centres and bolds the text quickly and easily. Cheers, Kevintoronto 16:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirection of Bell inequalities to Bell's theorem[edit]

Hi Death, The info contained in Bell inequalities should presumably now be incorporated into Bell's theorem but, as I pointed out in the discussion re possible deletion, the notation of the existing Bell's theorem page and that of the other inequalities is inconsistent. What is anyone intending to do about this? Caroline Thompson 18:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

major RFC changes[edit]

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

I think we have pretty clear consensus (except for jguk) that the page should be returned to the old procedures, at least for now. I'd like to ask you to please keep an eye on it. He has promised to keep reverting (ad nauseum), so it'd be nice if he see's I'm not the only one undoing his proposal. Primarily, this is because I don't want to see that very important page further disrupted. Please also keep an eye on the example subpage templates at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Please feel free to add any comments you have on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, where the new approach has already been discussed by other interested parties. It is an attempt to avoid confrontation (which is probably why Netoholic objects to it). The new approach is not perfect, but it is certainly an improvement on the nasty, divisive approach that we used to have. As I say, your comments on the talk page would be welcome, jguk 21:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate[edit]

I'm rather afraid that it's pretty permanent (though I might pop up every now and again - it depends on how much I can steele to stay away from this site!). I'll probably do typo fixes and update articles via anonymous edits. Incidently, it would be cool to get an oddball barnstar :) Anyway, hope things go well with you and the site. I'll still be consulting it for info! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mi Ulimo Adios[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your edits. I'm not too familiar with other wikimedia and went to wikisource and could not find Mi Ultimo Adios. I'd like to create a link to the poem contents. could you direct me. Thanks. --Jondel 00:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother splitting the poem off into a separate article. You can move it direct to Wikisource by cut-and-paste. Just go back to the main page, jump to the Wikisource page and create an article there with the content you want to move. The transwiki process says that we can preserve GFDL attribution by also cut-and-pasting the history page into the new article's Talk page along with a comment that this was a move from Wikipedia. There is a lot of other stuff in the transwiki process but most of it needn't apply for a very simple move. At the end of the transwiki process, tag the leftover article for speedy deletion (if appropriate).

To answer Jondel's question, once it's moved, the link he/she will create will then have to be in the format [[Wikisource:Article title|]]. (There is a short-cut but it escapes me just now.) Rossami (talk) 05:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

elections stuff[edit]

I'm pretty bummed out. thanks for the encouragement. It makes it pretty hard to develop a concensus when that sort of thing goes on. Of course, now MS123 will probably wise up and improve his sock puppetry to avoid detection, rather than changing his behaviour. You plan for adjusting colours looks like a lot of work, but will be worth it. The problem is, we have four votes for B and four for C. Which approach do we take? While I prefer B, C might be less likely to result in someone coming along and reverting all of the colours, which of course would be easy to do since they will all be in one place. Kevintoronto 15:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the userfy![edit]

Thank you very much! Kim Bruning 21:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate link[edit]

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson/Evidence, there seems to be a duplication of posted links, for #s 21 and 22:

Acestorides (talk · contributions) made a few dubious edits to the Science and History of Science articles before getting the password changed: 19 20 21
- The final blockable action was vandalism of the WP:RFAR page: 22

--Calton | Talk 07:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I found the link you meant to put in [1], and have taken the liberty of replacing the dupe with it. --Calton | Talk 11:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tommy Douglas CCOTW[edit]

Tommy Douglas, an article you have voted for, is the Canadian Collaboration of the Week for April 2005.

Duey Finster--159.134.48.112 00:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)[edit]

Thank you for your reasonable judegement in relation to my article on Mr. Duey Finster. I hope to contribute more to wikipedia in the future and knowing theres a nice community of folks running it makes me want to contribute even more (and encourage others)

Thank you!!! --159.134.48.112 00:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ranks.[edit]

Hmm...

heh. :) Since you are fascinated by ranks these two articles may interest you. I have all the ranks for NATO though am currently preocupied with school work. Cat ^chi? 16:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Awww. Wait till I complete that article. Cat ^chi? 16:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ontario general election, 1943[edit]

Hey Death, I already have a table prepared for this election, but I see you've put your name down for it (and all of the prior Ont elections). I don't want to step on toes, but I want to avoid duplication of effort. Regards, Kevintoronto 23:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion votes[edit]

I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Election charts revisions[edit]

Hey Death, great to have you on board the project. Your revision looks great, but would you also want to add a column for % change in # of seats? It's not a big thing, in fact, I seem to recall that when I first started working on elections tables, I was putting in a # change, but soeone else insisted on a % change. But I suggest it only for the sake of uniformity. If you don't want to do it, then don't. I think the new format of the tables is a big improvement over the old format, and, if changing my vote on the A/B/C/D options would make any difference, I think I would move the new format from 3rd choice to 1st choice. Regards, Kevintoronto 18:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I think it's worth fixing things up generally whenever I'm in an article. I tend to leave out the columns for which there are no data, but that's just me. Have fun. Kevintoronto 18:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the remaining federal elections. I'll focus on Saskabush for the time-being. You've convinced me about including all of the columns even if we don't have the data. I'll do so going forward, but I don't think I'll go back to the Onatrio pages and refit them, at least not until I have data to put in. I've been bolding the #s of seats won since that is probabaly the most important column for most people, and is consistent with some of the exisitng tables. You might want to consider continuing that. Thanks again. Kevintoronto 12:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Yukon page looks great. What is the lighter grey that you are using? Ground Zero 21:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Death. It looked to me like the colour was lighter than darkgray, but I've checked The Tom's template, and I see that it is the same. Regards, Ground Zero 22:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for saying so, but you are being very hypocritical. Removing the colour from the column is stupid if you say it obscures the text. Every election chart has headings with bold text against a dark grey background. To say that is not as bad as red or orange background does not make sense. Every site has a result chart that establishes the colour of every party. That same colour is used for every column heading! So it should be easy for anyone viewing this site to connect the dots. Alot of concessions have been made from all sides over the colour issue, and I don't think that it is too much of a compromise to keep the colours with the coloumn heading considering the points that I have made above. MS123

The results tables for every election has a dark grey colour with a black text. That would be far more unreadable that a small sqare with orange or blue. This is a small part that shoudn't bother anybody, especially considering the party colours are established in the results table and are used in the riding results table. Think about it. Red colour next to the liberals in the results table, and a red square in the riding by riding results table. The average person should be able to connect the dots and determine that its the liberal column. If you are still absolutly against this, then why don't we make a small picture that has the colour against white text

What do you think? MS123

I have considered what you said and so I have made some more headings for the other parties. Remember that only mainstream parties get there own columns, and so right now there aren't any parties that I could think of that would not work with a white text. I realize that times and parties that are in the fringe can come in to the mainstream, and so I have thoug of some possible solutions to the white text using the tan colour of the CCF to demonstrate.

File:Headerscdn.PNG MS123

What Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings project is not[edit]

This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
It will be used only by users who want to use it.
Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks Cat ^chi? 08:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar stuff[edit]

Heya, DP! I was just wondering if you could drop by Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals and vote on the Science and Mathematics star and name? Currently, it's pretty close, and more votes would give us a better perspective on a possible consensus. Cheers! – Clockwork Soul 16:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your input, please[edit]

Some more ideas here on formatting of elections tables. I hope these won't be controversial. Ground Zero 19:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing blocks on greek socks[edit]

It's probably not necessary to remove those blocks. Blocks on IP addresses have a certain overhead, because they need to be checked every time, every edit... but blocks on a username only need to be checked once, at login time. I don't think there's any real overhead at all. -- Curps 05:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xiong[edit]

Hi there! Because the RFC about Xiong seemed to deal mainly on his disagreements with Netoholic, I thought it best to start a new RFC to see if people have comments on Xiong's behavior that do not relate to Netoholic. Please give your thoughts and/or opinion on that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong. R adiant _* 08:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template standardisation[edit]

If you get a sec, drop by there and vote? I have a horse in the race that I think has a chance, and I would like your opinion. – Clockwork Soul 02:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Masturbation[edit]

Would you care to register an opinon on the Masturbation Talk page as to whether a full color photograph of male masturbation is suitable for that page? Thank you. Force10 22:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

extraneous "=" ?[edit]

Dear Deathphoenix,

Thought I should let you know that the extraneous "=" you've found on Auschwitz concentration camp wasn't really a typo. After some digging, I've found this evidence at the crime scene. :-) Anyway, I've just reverted the section blanking.

Cheers !
-- PFHLai 19:32, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Federal elections[edit]

I hope that you don't mind that I've gone ahead and done some more federal election table conversions. I figure that you don't seem to have much time to do them, so I'd go ahead. Regards, Ground Zero 21:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal voters[edit]

Death, the user who posted this report of "vandalism" has been blocked for 24 Hours. He posted that information in for the seventh time. He has been told before that VIP is not a place to discuss that, since it has been determined it is not vandalism. I would not be surprised if he does do it again. I first started to think it is a translation problem, now I think he has an axe to grind against me and others who voted to delete and the admins that helped him and the admins that closed the debate and deleted the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Prison Gang VfD result backwards?[edit]

I thought the result of the vote was to Keep 'prison gang', and merge 'STG' into it, rather than keep 'STG' and merge 'Prison gang' into it. You merged them opposite of that. Prison gang should be the main article, and the law enforcement neology 'STG' should be the redirect. If you have a preference for the way you did it, I won't complain. Thanks. --Unfocused 21:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]