Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Media updated but needs a source

I updated the part about TV stations WB and UPN are non existant and in their place is My Network TV and The CW but I can't find a site like the one referenced mentioned where it mentions the new stations in a list of just Minneapolis Television Stations. RandMC_

Sources needed

Hello, I wonder if someone who owns a television or knows better can find a source for TV stations in Minneapolis? Best I can do from Google is the FCC, but that is a search result. We also seem to need a radio station reference and one for the area of the airport . Also the caption needs a better source for Prince's studies at MDT. -Susanlesch 22:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC). Add one -Susanlesch 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

3400 acres [1]--Appraiser 04:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, one down. -Susanlesch 11:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It contains more than Mpls, but this external link lists television stations and links to their sites. I don't think it can be used as a source, but may want to just use this internal link. Bfx12a9 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article

I'm sorry I missed this article's FAR, I would have loved to contribute. However, I still feel that there are some things that need to be done before this article meets standards completely.

• Per WP:LEAD: "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I don't think the lead accomplishes that completely. Specifically, I believe there should be more of the city's history and culture included in the lead, such as when Minneapolis was founded and more about Minneapolis' art and theatre scene (see bulleted point below).

• I also think there are slight WP:NPOV issues in the article. Specifically with letting the facts speak for themselves. Please read over this very short section: Wp:npov#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves

• Right now the lead says "Regional Theatre . . . is part of a strong local tradition in the performing arts." Why the need for commentary there? I would perfer that the lead show me the importance of Minneapolis theatre with facts instead of commentary. i.e: "The region is second only to New York City in live theater per capita and the third-largest theater market in the U.S." should be in the lead instead of what is currently there. These two facts get the point across much more effectively by showing the reader.
• In the lead, you shouldn't need to say Minneapolis is the pirmary business center in the vast expanse between chicago and seattle: this speaks for itself; take out the word "vast" and it will sound much more concise and with a more NPOV.
• Expanding on that point, you shouldn't need to say things like "Minneapolitans are a diverse group of people" and "Professional sports are well-established in Minneapolis." Again, the commentary is not useful. Instead, rely on the facts to bring the point across; it sounds less like the article is trying to enbolden the city and even gets the point across better. Once the facts are displayed, the reader knows minneapolitans are diverse and that sports are well established in the city, without being told the obvious.

• Finally, In the lead, there should be a citaton for a park being within .8 miles from every home.

That's it. Although, I did notice there were a few more examples of the NPOV issues in the article, but I think you get the point. Since this isn't a FAR I can take care of some of these things if no one else wants to. Okiefromokla•talk 17:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please go ahead. Great comments. Thanks. -Susanlesch 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why was the edit reverted? Okiefromokla•talk 03:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. A few reasons:

1. Too much detail
2. A sentence was copied from the body of the article (and thus appeared twice)
3. A sentence didn't make sense: 6,400 acres of park by every home.
4. A sentence was partly inaccurate (source for volunteer percent is metro area rather than the city, and source referred to adults not all people).

But thanks for trying. -Susanlesch 10:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This article's lead is currently inadequate, it lacks sources, and needs to be a much fuller introduction to the city. It needs to be able to "stand alone" as its own article. (Please read WP:LEAD). This article is featured and is owned by everyone, and the Wikipedia community as a whole should be able to determine its content. Rather than reverting the edit because you didn't like it, this should be discussed. I would also like to have noted that I did discuss these issues before changing the lead, and it was agreed upon. One person does not own this article.

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a thorough overview of the article, and therefore needs to be longer, more detailed, and not have small 2-sentence paragraphs, as it does not provide a deep enough introduction to the article.
• The sentence that was repeated could have been reworded in the body section of the article. The sentence you are referring to, that Minneapolis is second only to New York City in theatre per capita, illustrates the city's importance in the arts, and most certainly should be in the lead - it is a vital fact. The current fact about regional theatre, which, as it is now, needs a citation (see WP:LEAD), could be left alone as it also helps illustrate the theatre importance within the city.
• The sentence did not read "6,400 acres of park by every home." It read: "The city's 6,400 acres of public parks are located within six city blocks of every home." Though if necessary, this could be reworded to be more clear, that is what the source says. The current wording, that parks are within a half mile of every home, is not sourced, and is not what the Minneapolis parks department says. Also, saying that "parks are modeled after Minneapolis" is unsourced and realistically untrue.
• The sentence about the volunteer rate could have been changed to be more accurate without being reverted all together. This fact is a perfect highlight of the city's volunteer and charity section, and much better summarizes it than the blank opinion that "The community has a long tradition of charitable support through progressive public social programs," which tells the reader nothing. This would be much better (change the wording how ever you wish): "The community has a long tradition of charitable support through progressive public social programs, maintaining a 40% volunteer rate." This is so the reader simply doesn't have to take your word for that Minneapolis has a long tradition of charity.

• Again, "the vast expanse between Chicago and Seattle" is not necessary. By reverting the edit you reinserted the superfluous word "vast." Okiefromokla•talk 18:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um, nobody said one person owns this article. I think you've entered the lead discussion quite late. I for one will be happy to review your comments and edits but I see a different style than the one we used. We had one reviewer who did participate in the peer review ask for no inline citations in the lead. That means whatever it says needs to be sourced and explained elsewhere, as parks are in the Parks and recreation section. Also note that fhe sentence about volunteers was not reverted, it was corrected and moved. (My own preference is that people have energy left after reading the lead to read the article. Again speaking for me, improvements to the lead are and always have been most welcome. Sorry, outta time now. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 22:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please review WP:LEAD: According to this, the lead should be well sourced with inline citations and act as a miniature version of the article that would be able to be an informative stub article in it of itself. Additionally, there is no such thing as being "late" on the discussion - Wikipedia articles are always being edited and discussion is always open. This article's lead will not meet FA standards until it meets the requirements of WP:LEAD. I, of course, am open to working together to improve the lead, which is why I first approached the issue on the talk page. I hope we can work together to improve the article. Okiefromokla•talk 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• For those who wish to work together on the lead, I would suggest that prior discussions may already exist on the discussion pages and their archives for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch 23:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You know where I stand. With that being said, since you apparently did not like the previous edit, I will do the following:

• Change the sentence about the parks from being within 1/2 mile of every home to 6 blocks, which is what the minneapolis parks department's website says. Being within 1/2 mile is inaccurate.
• Delete the following: "public parks are modeled after minneapolis." This is not referenced in the body. Unless there is a reference or it is clarified, it should go, as it appears to not be factual. I cannot find instances of parks being modeled after minneapolis parks, so unless you can find a reference for it, this has no place here.
• You said someone recommended not having inline citations at all in the lead. Right now, there are inline citations in the lead. Either we have no citations or we have every fact cited. I will enter citations for the other facts depending on what you say regarding this.
• The following I feel should be done to enhance the lead's quality, but I will not immediately do them. Please explain your disagreement:

• Reinserting the "theatre per capita" fact. This is a very important fact that in itself provides a summary of minneapolis' arts and theatre. In fact, it is the most important fact regarding the city's arts and theatre. Simply saying the city has a long local tradition in performing arts is an understatement. Readers should go into the article already with a basic understanding of theatre's importance in minneapolis.
• The 2 sentence paragraphs should be combined some how, which may require some rewording. Right now, they look awkward. Take a look at the following American feature article cities: Detroit, New York City, Seattle, Tulsa, Louisville, and San Francisco. None of them have such stubby paragraphs (except san francisco, but it didn't when it was promoted).

Finally, as I have been saying, per WP:LEAD, readers should go into the article with a basic understanding of the article already. The lead needs to be a stand alone article in it of itself - that doesn't mean it has to be huge, but it has to be concise and comprehensive. This article's lead is too concise and does not give an accurate overview of the article. But one step at a time. Look over my proposals, but I will make the changes described in the first 2 or three bullets, pending any arguments against them. Okiefromokla•talk 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I compared the lead of the city articles you linked and found nothing different than what is already being done in the Mpls lead. In fact based on your points all those city leads should be redone and improved as none follow a similar pattern save for population estimates and noting the city is the center of a metropolitan area. I believe Wikipedia should update its policy on leads and take out citations in leads because it is very distracting. Other article leads also make general claims regarding its city for example Detroit is the "world's traditional automotive center" but doesn't necessarily go into detail right away about Ford. And New York "is one of the preeminent global economic centers, with its business, financial, legal, and media organizations having worldwide influence" but isn't going into stats just yet. These are general recognized facts which are elaborated later in the article. IMO the Mpls lead is fairly stand-alone, though it could use restructuring for flow, the information is solid. Other cities tend to talk about how their cities are important or famous to the nation and Mpls just doesn't have that kind of celebrity. Davumaya 07:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

population

It seems to me that if we're going to have a table showing population trends, all the data should be from the same source. If Metro Council estimates are to be used, how far back do they go?--Appraiser 02:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Though I can't answer your question, I restored the table to US census throughout because they have the only ranking data over time that I have seen. But it no longer matches the infobox (this swapping goes on all the time probably?). -Susanlesch 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo Caption

I am wondering about the photo that claims Minneapolitans have ancestors from five continents. Okay, obviously we can exclude Antarctica, but there are clearly descendents of people with roots on all of the six other continents. Am I missing something?

• My bad. Sometimes I seem to count the Arctic and make the two Americas one or some other confusion (no idea why). So you think it should say six? Hope you or someone else who knows will fix the caption. Thanks for the correction. -Susanlesch 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

recording

Thanks to Susanlesch for awarding me a voice recording barnstar on the occasion of Mpls reaching featured article status! I will be doing a new recording of the revised material very soon. I may also expand into a few section paragraphs but sadly I am not able to record everything because the file gets too big and the info changes too often in the lower sections. Please let me know if there is a specific request for the recording. Davumaya 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Davumaya, thank you again for recording this giantly long article. Your plans sounds excellent. I tried to move the lead around. Does anyone have suggestions before it is recorded again? -Susanlesch 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• O lol the lead changed a lot, gonna record now. Davumaya 20:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridge collapse

Can we have a section on that? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (not signed in)

Well, we have an article on it.. i'm going to add the link.. Megan :) 17:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the dab about the I-35W event is necessary at this time. What is the reasoning for it to remain? Davumaya 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

non-political queer public demonstration

So, let's see, someone thinks we ought to have a picture showing a minority demographic that carries no political messages? I think the placards in that photo are quite representative of some of the issues gay-rights activist hope to draw attention to. I believe anyone researching the issues would learn that the placards shown represent that slice of the population fairly well. We have a lot of photos in this article; I think keeping one that represents 5-10% of our population is appropriate.--Appraiser 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the placards would appear to apply to the majority of the population. "Body image" affects everyone, as does health care. If it weren't for the caption it'd be hard to tell exactly what the parade was about. Overall, I think it illustrates that the city has diverse and political elements. But it doesn't hit the reader over the head with advocacy either. For those reasons I think it helps the article. If we start removing images because we think they promote various causes or businesses then we may have no illustrations left. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the Health Care one is probably the one that person objects to, given the earlier comment about collectivism. And health care coverage is at the forefront of gay-rights issues, since the inability to marry effectively limits insurance coverage that many heterosexual people take for granted.--Appraiser 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article should be informative, not persuasive. Would you defend an image in this section of the Minneapolis Chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans?

Are they a significant portion of Minneapolis' population? They may or may not participate in the Pride Parade; I don't recall ever seeing them. I think the existing photo is representative of that portion of the population, whereas I believe the Log Cabin Republicans would represent a MUCH smaller slice of the population. They DO have a WP article; I have no problem with its existence. --Appraiser 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to be persuaded one way or another by that photo. It illustrates several dimensions of the city: namely the existence of parades, the existence of a gay community, the tolerance of the general community, and political activism. We're not promoting Target or US Bancorp by including photos of their buildings, nor are we promoting the Episcopalian Church by including a photo of one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

much better answer. Thanks.--Appraiser 21:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Um...... now I realize why this image bothers me so much. The caption in the article doesn't go with the image and the picture itself is rather uninspiring or evocative of whatever message its trying to promote. Firstly, "Minnesotans have ancestors from five continents" how does that somehow connect to the GLBT Parade? It really doesn't unless gay has become a new imported culture from another continent. Perhaps it should more rightfully explain what the picture is doing, that showcasing issues in a questioning society. Secondly, not referring to the picture directly or what it is doing is misleading in an article because it's like clicking on a picture of Bill Clinton and getting Hillary at the podium with Bill sitting in the background. We know its a picture about the GLBT parade but the picture shown is communicating a starkly different message which does not tell us how it relates to Minneapolis nor the GLBT community. Sure Appraizer said it tells people to infer that Mpls is tolerant--I think there is a better way. The picture is crappy but sorry I was marching in the parade, couldn't really take other pictures of it. But even I might advocate removal of the picture for now because it just sucks in so many ways. You don't even see other people watching the parade, is this how we want to show our parade? A disfunctional-looking bunch of people dressed in black in the middle of summer downtown with no one around? Anyone have a gallery of other photos that we can choose from would be nice. .:DavuMaya:. 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, DavuMaya. If the caption or the photo bothers you, how about fixing the caption (a known error) or the photo? Best wishes. -Susanlesch 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The immigrants rights march picture is good too. Thanks for adding it.--Appraiser 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeg liker! .:DavuMaya:. 04:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Commercial development POV

“ Rescued from commercial development during the 1800s ”

I added a fact tag to the caption quoted above as uncited and possibly POV. Daisey cutter 14:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed, thanks. Anyone with a better source is of course welcome to change it. This one is pretty good and says: "At the same time that literary enthusiasts were enshrining the site, numerous entrepreneurs sought to tap the water power for milling and industrial use." Hope this helps. -Susanlesch 17:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• This one [2] indicates that the site wasn't really commercially viable. So I find the word "rescued" to be quite a stretch. Perhaps the discrepancy is due to different periods of time. Susan, in your book by Daniel Nadenicek, is there any indication of the date that entrepreneurs were interested? My source says that Godfrey abandoned the falls in 1871. The state legislature made it a state park in 1889. I don't know much about Joe Brown or when he supposedly staked a claim.--Appraiser 17:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Roughly 1870s. The contemporary introduction by Nadenicek and Neckar to the Cleveland book (I am looking at it limitedly, in Amazon's reader) says in the previous sentence the falls was a "pilgrimage site by the 1870s" with thousands of visitors due to the poem. The comment I made in the edit history refers to attempts to make it a state park. I believe that failed. If you have a copy or you can get Google books to show those pages (sometimes they have a limited preview), Roy Willard Meyer's Everyone's Country Estate: A History of Minnesota's State Parks (Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1991) seemed to me most interested in that aspect (that it is a city not state park). AOK with me to change the caption by the way. -Susanlesch 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't remember reading anything in the history of Minneapolis or Minnesota saying that Minnehaha Falls was potentially going to be tapped for industrial development. I'll make a note to check my books and other references, though. --Elkman^(Elkspeak) 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• It seems very unlikely that Minnehaha Falls would ever have been seriously considered for an industrial site -- it's just not very suitable. The location itself, with the deep gorge, would make development & transportation difficult, and the falls are quite variable, often stopping completely during dry times, or freezing over in winter: that is not desirable for an industrial waterpower site. (And the variability was worse before the various dams & sluiceways were built along the creek & lakes.)T-bonham 00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this [3] on page 28, it did become a state park. Is that wrong?--Appraiser 18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Minnesota DNR put out its 2008 calendar with a number of historic facts about Minnesota state parks. The March page states, "1885, March 9. The Minnesota Legislature appoints five commissioners to select and begin acquisition of land including the Minnehaha Falls as a state park. Four years later an appropriations bill turns over jurisdiction of the site to the City of Minneapolis with no state park designation." --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Article

I think this article exemplifies what a great article should be, lots of good pics and facts. We at the Miami project have a curse. Miami is now, as of 2006, the 4th biggest metro in the U.S. We're growing at 1 million people every 10 years. Perhaps some of the people here could go talk to the Miami project people about how photos and fun facts really help an article. I'm hoping to come visit Minn some day, I imagine EVERYONE has or will visit us!

I'm working on the Boca Raton, Florida article, and trying to build it to these standards... Perhaps if you all came by and took a look, and left some comments on our talk pages. We're both dealing with world city articles, and ours seems to be suffering from the fact that getting a picture in Miami is difficult, because photographing the city, and focusing away from the tourist photos draws really bad attention. So, anyway, maybe this is a wierd thing to ask, but I just love this article so much, especially the bike rack photo!ReignMan 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Law firms

Hi. Over time a bunch of people have added two law firms in Minneapolis. I have reverted those additions. One editor for example called them "Top 100" firms. I looked up "Top 100" for Minneapolis and found this kind of rating for many different kinds of businesses. Can anyone think of a reason that these two law firms should be here? -Susanlesch 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• To give them free advertising of course.--Appraiser 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I peeked at their Wiki pages, looks like some very bored lawyers are advertising their own firm with Wikieditors flying off their seats. I guess if you have hundreds of lawyers, some are bound to find WP a fun diversion. The only reasoning I can think of is these two are prominent law firms in terms of the services they provide internationally but the only significance is that they were founded in Minneapolis and their headquarters are here (tho with globalization for the meanwhile). My fond memory of Dorsey is that they came into my Caribou when I was in college because the Dorsey Caribou's line was too long. What I think is important is what are the top 10 employers in Minneapolis (in terms of employed people) and then from there what are the top 5 grossing companies. Then what are the prominent industries and services overall in Mpls. .:DavuMaya:. 07:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of top private employers[4]. I suspect that the federal government, county, city, and school system would also be on that list if it included government entities. Perhaps we should add an employment section.--Appraiser 13:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Added apart from government. -Susanlesch 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks.--Appraiser 13:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Future stadiums

Hello. The text added yesterday about future stadiums is moved for now to cuts because it is unsourced and too long for here. Maybe someone familiar with the topic can use that to make a sourced version? -Susanlesch 03:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC) What is wrong with people? I'm pretty damn sure that Xcel Energy and the Wild are in St. Paul unless the space time continuum has been altered. Hell even the NorthStars played in Bloomington before that. Minneapolis would notice if hockey fans flooded the streets every now and then. .:DavuMaya:. 04:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Skyscape, architecture, n'hoods etc

I've been surfing other city websites (cuz I'm thinking of applying for jobs elsewhere) and I've noticed we sort of lack a "cityscape" or skyline section and a general n'hoods section. I know we mention each subject throughout the article but where then do these two sections go if they were to be fleshed out more? The infrastructure? The demos? Baltimore (which by no means is a good article) dedicates an entirely new section called Cityscape and combines all that sort of infrastructure/housing/architecture information into itself. Combine in a current section (and its additional page) or create a new section? Thoughts? .:DavuMaya:. 15:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Add the section if you can find proper sourcing.--Loodog 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we need neighborhoods? I have a book; remind me if I don't get to it in two weeks. -- SEWilco 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Rawk, I know what book ur talking about so that would be helpful. It would help guide us how to talk about all the n'hoods as a whole which right now is a gargantuan mix of information in my head. I started some text in cuts. .:DavuMaya:. 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New Picture or Pictures

P.S. Thanks to the members of CompuServe, strange as it may sound, who were not stupid enough to take no for an answer for Internet access in 1990 or so.

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever came to mind, but that of course leads one to remember that psychiatry convinced who? he was the most famous director of Broadway plays in New York City, USA, who ever overcame bipolar disorder. You see, they said you can only be one of four things back then.

I think the current main picture is very nice, but its getting a bit old. Who agrees that we should find a new one?76.113.129.216 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, User:76.113.129.216. I sent you a Welcome to Wikipedia note on your talk page, with apologies as I see you made some edits a bit earlier. Thank you for your comment. Maybe you have been lurking while these discussions took place? No problem if so. -Susanlesch 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

-Thank you for the welcome letter, but i am not new to wikipedia, ive been using it for almost 2 years now, i just never edited untill lately 76.113.129.216 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is too old. I don't recall construction newer than August 2007 which changes the view. Maybe I'll go make a panoramic sequence, though. -- SEWilco 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Depending on where you stand there are a few new buildings such as the Ivy hotel, renovations on the North Loop, some in the Mill District. I wouldn't mind evaluating new images for consideration but it's about quality and a new photo should be on par with the existing photo's capture of lighting and using a dramatic angle. .:DavuMaya:. 22:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find a suitable railing to block the view. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. Nobody in this city exists anymore, as far as I know. I am here visiting from California and have yet to meet anyone who cannot find a couple exceptions. When I was a kid they bought Mad magazines, now they don't care and just can't drive a city bus, direct traffic, or even serve a cup of coffee without wanting more. That might explain my attraction to my boyfriend, come to think of it. Back when AOL was a town, his user page said, "Blessed are the easily pleased." His degree, in mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is worth more I think than one from that school today. -Susanlesch (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

What a shame this talk page has descended into the social sciences. I myself always liked geography, at least back in seventh grade before I realized its effect on the field of realty also known as real estate. But I would prefer to leave the photos and resulting commentary in place. If nothing more to say thank you to Margaret, Suzzy and Terre Roche. I couldn't stay long but they sounded so nice. Oh yes, and thank you to Kim Jorgenson, who I was told once watched the Uptown Theatre from across the street at McDonald's. Not much to speak of in Minneapolis at the time, but I have heard that Diana Ross was a customer in Los Angeles. We actually did better than that but no telling when a train can deliver a movie can to Bob Dylan in Prior Lake, Minnesota. Good luck. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you.--Jwwalker (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)