User talk:Shirik/Archives/2009/December

Punctuation question

I'm a frequent editor at Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I want to thank you for doing an excellent job of copyediting it. I noticed something where I had a (small) question, though. I noticed you changed punctuation to have periods and commas inside of quotation marks instead of after. I thought WP:LQ now treats that differently, but I admit that the subject baffles me a bit. What do you think? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for that. That's a habit of mine from editing other documents. Typically the manner I did it in is "preferred." It does, however, appear I have gone against WP:MOS, so feel free to change it back. If you don't correct it I will make another pass tonight to adjust according to WP:MOS. Thanks for catching this. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good, thanks. Please give it a look when you are ready, because I'm not sure whether I'll get to it myself. If I haven't done it by the time you check, then it would be very nice if you could do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I will take care of it in a few hours. The only thing holding me up right now is that I have to register for classes for next semester, and just realized the school has completely broken my student account so I have to rush over there and get everything straightened out. Once that's all done I would be more than happy to go through it again. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues you raised. Some of the usages of punctuation were in fact correct, however others did not conform to WP:MOS. I believe I have corrected it all. Feel free to raise any concerns you may have with the current revision. Thanks again. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, both for that and for the excellent copyediting generally. It was a real help. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit for The Kinks

Hello there! The article The Kinks is currently going through the FAC process. The article, however, requires the services of a copyeditor... I wondered if you would take on the task? Please post here if you would like to do it. Many thanks for your time! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I will get started on that. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For doing an excellent and thorough job copyediting The Kinks, I hereby award you this Copyeditor's Barnstar. Many thanks! I.M.S. (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) --Mpdelbuono (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

HEY BRO, MIND IF I MAKE A SUGGESTION?

I WOULDN'T WANT TO OVERSTEP MY BOUNDARIES　—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.75.74 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 December 2009

Would you mind elaborating on the boundaries which I overstepped? If you are referring to the fact that I reverted your edits, then I suggest that you take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines for more information on what we're looking for at Wikipedia. Furthermore, try to use more useful edit summaries than "HEY LOOK EVERYBODY I'M VANDALIZING WIKIPEDIA" as you did here. Thanks! --Shirik (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shirik, sorry or the unwanted rollback. I've blocked this IP for 12 hours as it happens. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP is now requesting unblock - if you're prepared to unblock I won't object. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pedro, no worries I totally understand why you would roll the page back. You aren't the first. Anyway, I have no objections to him being unblocked (on that note I have no objections to him being blocked, either; he was certainly acting in a vandal-only mode). As I am not an admin I leave the final decision to you, and support you either way. --Shirik (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the IP is now mucking around with their own talk in a way indicative of someone not unfamiliar with WP and wiki markup. So no way is that block ending prematurely. Having said all that, I had assumed you were an admin - must be a similar username - or just that you ought to be one ! Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sentiments -- perhaps in the future, but for right now I think I need a little more experience under my belt before I could proceed with an RfA. You keep up the good work though. --Shirik (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good = unrewarding misery. But yeah, I'll try too :) Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

High schools notable?

You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE since you were one of the editors whose consensus inspired that debate. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I've put in my $0.02 and I'll be watching it over the next few days/weeks/centuries --Shirik (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Greetings Shirik! I got your name from a list of general copy editors and was curious to know if you may be interested in copy editing Monarchy of Spain article? In particular, I'm looking to remove excessive jargon and cumbersom "constitutional" phrasing that might be a block to readers. I looked up your interests and it seemed to not include history and politics... which from my perspective is good as you may judge the article with a phresh perspective and see things that I and others would not see. If you are uninterested, then I would compleatly understand.

Happy Holidays!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm more than willing to do the copy edit if you're willing to give me about 8 hours before I start. Unfortunately it is extremely late for me and I need to get some sleep before I can take a serious look at that article. Please let me know if you still want me to do it even though it will be a bit delayed. --Shirik (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Delayed is ok too! (it is late, lol. Get some sleep) Thank you!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bye and Happy Christmas

Please accept my advanced Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.I will not be able to wish you on those days as I will be taking a Wiki break for one month starting tomorrow. Also wishing you a Happy editing.. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 December 2009

Hey, thanks a lot! I hope you have a great one too. Have a good wiki break and try not to drink TOO much egg nog over the holidays. Catch you in 2010. --Shirik (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bad link

Thanks for that; you are entirely correct. Happy holidays! :) upstateNYer 07:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How to become Enlightened

Hi. I have declined your speedy on this article, because WP:CSD#A1 doesn't really apply - this is not a very short article, and the context is reasonably clear. It doesn't come under any of the speedy criteria so (regretfully declining the author's offer on the talk page of payment to have it kept) I have PRODded it as OR. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that WP:CSD#A1 doesn't apply as there really is no context for the article. The article certainly discusses something, but not about "How to become Enlightened", which is supposedly what the article is about. Accordingly, the subject cannot be identified. However, it's your decision to make and I'll second the PROD. Thanks. --Shirik (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's maybe arguable, but I refer you to WP:FIELD#Articles and WP:10CSD (both worth reading anyway). Yes, this is vague and waffly, and the text doesn't match the title well, but you can "read the article and understand what it's about", just about: it's about Enlightenment. Also, though this isn't explicitly stated in the guidelines, I think "very short" really means one or two lines, one or two sentences, like their "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." example. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, I guess we just interpret the criteria in differing levels of strictness. In any case, thanks for the reads, and I've seconded your WP:PROD. Thanks again. --Shirik (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, Shirik/Archives/2009! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Speedy deletion declined: Galaxy Express Corporation

Hello Shirik, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Galaxy Express Corporation - a page you tagged - because: Mentioned in sources provided does rather imply some notability. PROD or take to AfD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  14:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ged. Could you please elaborate on the implied notability? The only source I see that would imply notability would be the one from spacenews which says nothing except that this rocket is scheduled for cancellation. To be frank, if that were to imply notability, that would also mean millions of other corporations are notable for being reported as going bankrupt. This "implied notability" seems to be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Naturally, since you contested it, it's not appropriate for WP:CSD anymore as the article obviously cannot be "unquestionably deleted", so I'll take it to WP:AFD, but I would like to know what you saw that I didn't. Thanks. --Shirik (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Assertions of notability can be tricky things. For me, a company that has so many major companies as shareholders implies some notability. Additionally, it's making a rocket that is notable enough to have it's own article. Both of these things were a credible assertion of notability for A7, which is a lower threshold than that needed to pass the general notability guideline. GedUK  21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ged. That makes sense; thanks for your explanation. --Shirik (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your tone at AfD:Galaxy Express Corporation

Ditto for your comments, both there and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sdsds#Your_tone_at_AfD:Galaxy_Express_Corporation. You are right: it is nothing personal. I understand deletionism and inclusionism are in opposition, and that much of your work on our encyclopedia is consistent with deletionism. Do you think anything could convince you to pursue a more inclusionist approach? Perhaps you could consider balancing your deletion proposals with efforts that enhance and build upon the work of other project members? (sdsds - talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that I have voted keep on quite a few articles, and am at the forefront of the current discussion regarding the extreme likelihood of notability for high schools in favor of keeping high schools, I think that your comments are unjustified. I do not consider myself a deletionist, however I do feel that there are definitely things that do not belong on Wikipedia. I ask that if you have any indication of why you think my work does not "enhance" the Wikipedia project as a whole (aside from the obvious statement that you simply disagree with my feelings of what should or should not be in Wikipedia), then please elaborate. Perhaps I don't add substance to Wikipedia, but please, let's be honest, if every little thing that got posted stayed on Wikipedia permanently, then the signal to noise ratio of Wikipedia would be far less than what it is now. Instead, people like me, while we do not actually add content, we significantly improve the signal to noise ratio of Wikipedia. There are bound to be disagreements from time to time, but that doesn't mean you can come out and start calling someone "unconstructive". By the way, for the record, I rarely propose things for deletion. Instead, I tend to work on vandalism cleanup and copy editing. If that is also unconstructive, then I don't know what else you want from me. --Shirik (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been brought to the attention of WP:WQA in an effort to relieve tensions. --Shirik (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Shirik, please do not take what I have written so far in this exchange personally. Until now I have tried to focus solely on your contributions! My responses would have been the same to any editor. Let me take the opportunity here though to write something personally to you in response to your comments above. I value you as an editor! Wikipedia needs more dedicated editors, and I want to encourage your participation in creating our encyclopedia, not discourage it. As an inclusionist, I believe you can do that best by researching topics that our encylopedia does not yet cover well, and then sharing the results of your research by improving those articles that try to cover the topic.

Using the case of Galaxy Express Corporation just as an example: it matters little whether the material about the company that we have today is in an article of its own, or combined into the article on the GX rocket. What attracts your attention to it, and mine, is that we have so little material about this endeavor at all! Yes, it is difficult to find reliable sources in English. But beware the subtle risk of systemic bias! Only time will tell if that company is the fore-runner of a whole new way of doing aerospace in Japan.

Sincerely, (sdsds - talk) 16:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I value everyone's contributions as well, I simply try to ensure the quality of Wikipedia is maintained. I'm going to spend a few days trying to do some research on that company to get a fuller understanding of the company's notability. I'll try to keep you informed of what I find. --Shirik (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

re: A little more time before rolling back

You are right, sorry, I was just about to tag it but you bet me to it. :P > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks again for your hard work! --Shirik (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, and Holidays!

Happy First Edit Day, Shirik, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

File:18th Birthday.jpg

MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki talk contribs wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

I (MisterWiki) created a video specially for you, wishing you the best for this christmas time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOAvuNbt1o

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:MisterWiki/Happy Holidays}} to your friends' talk pages.

MisterWiki talk contribs 15:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Shirik (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Galaxy Express Corporation

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Like you, I hope there are no hard feelings about this! One thing to consider is the "side effects" of article deletion. If it is deleted, its revision history becomes inaccessible. If on the other hand the entire contents of an article is replaced with a redirect to some other article, then the original article's revision history is maintained. So if a redirect to another article is possible, the deletion question becomes, "Is the content so inappropriate for our encyclopedia that Wikipedia should not even show editors the work that had been done?" That's pretty severe! (sdsds - talk) 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

usurpation

The username in the russian section is free now. --Obersachse (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Shirik (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Trillenium

Thank you. I understand now. Guess I should have read the notability guidelines first. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shop&socialize (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Be careful!

I noticed this edit you performed using rollback. Please have a re-read of When not to use rollback'. I noticed you mentioned on IRC you 'couldn't decide' if it was vandalism or not - rollback should only ever be used to revert vandalism or blatantly unproductive edits. Don't take this to be a scolding, merely pointing it out to save your ass... rollback privileges can disappear if the finger slips :) Cheers — Deon^talk 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I probably should have been more clear. What I meant to say was that it really was both vandalism and a request for help. The edit was clearly unproductive based off that edit and past history, so I didn't take issue with it. The side effect was that I also went out to post a {{helpme-onTalk}} on his page. Hope that's clearer :) But thanks for the note. --Shirik (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN for North American blizzard of 2009

On 20 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article North American blizzard of 2009, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Merry Christmas! :) --candle•wicke 02:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and you too! --Shirik (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Super Saturday

On December 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Super Saturday, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

iCarly iHide a star

Okay I looked And there's nothing on the net. Take a look at this.

1. 201 - 203 iGo To Japan
2. 204 - iSaw Him First
3. 205 - iStage An Intervention
4. 206 - iOwe You
5. 207 - iHurt Lewber
6. 208 - iPie
7. 209 - iChristmas
8. 210 - iKiss
9. 211 - iGive Away A Car
10. 212 - iMeet Fred
11. 213 - iLook Alike
12. 214 - iGo Nuclear
13. 215 - iRocked The Vote
14. 216 - iMake Sam Girly
15. 217/225 - originally iMeet Connor and iGet cought, but no OFFICIAL statement as to what episode goes here probably iDate A Bad Boy
16. 218 - iReunite With Missy
17. 219 - iWant My Website Back
18. 220 - iMust Have Locker #239
19. 221 - iFight Shelby Marx (1)
20. 222 - iFight Shelby Marx (2)
21. 223 - iCarly Awards
22. 224 - iTwins
23. 226 - iDid That First
24. 227 - iThink They Kissed
25. 228 - iCook
26. 229 - iHave My Principals
27. 230 - iSpeed Date
28. 231 - iFix A Popstar
29. 232 - iSaved Your Life
30. 233&234 - iSplit Up / iDiscover Dave & Fleck - now iquit
31. 235 - iEnrage Gibby
32. 236 - iFind Lewbert's Lost Love
33. 237 - iWas A Pageant Girl
34. 238 - iWon't Cancel The Show
35. 239 - iSpaced Out
36. 240 - iBelieve in Bigfoot
37. 242 - iBeat the Heat
38. 243-244 - iPsycho
39. 245 - iBloop

I have been watching show fax and it was not on there even when they were going to film that episode. Also I looked and it says it will air on 12-27 and it did not even air. I looked at all the guides Tv guide, msn, tvrage, and tv. If you add the season 2 episodes and the rest as season 3 + 25 episodes for season 1 and the movies or specails as 2 episodes who will get 70 episodes for the whole show so far.T.V. Watcher 98 (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find this list? Please note that it doesn't have to be an online source. If you can find the details in a printed (reliable and verifiable) source, this would make for an acceptable citation. But it does have to be in a source somewhere. --Shirik (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I know forman arn't a RS, But I found them in the upcoming episodes of iCarly therd. One of the users there emailed the casting director and she gave the production codes to them. In July I started tracking the episodes on showfax.com Witch is a casting website. Also dan has pics or videos of the episodes while shooting on Danwarp in some way or formT.V. Watcher 98 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I know this is not a RS http://iicarlyy.blogspot.com/ but the next 2 episodes are iWas A Pageant Girl [9th January], iSaved Your Life [18th January] witch hhas been confirmed already on TVguide.comT.V. Watcher 98 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and your desire to correct this information. However, the very reason the page was protected is because of unsourced or unreliable information on the page contributing to edit wars. Accordingly, I can't fulfill your {{editsemiprotected}} request until a consensus has been established that it is OK. Controversial unsourced information cannot be added. I suggest that you first go to the article's talk page and open a discussion about this change. If you can reach consensus, then the change is more likely to go through. But take note that if you fail to meet WP:RS then it is likely that you won't be able to achieve consensus without a very strong reason. --Shirik (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hi Shirik, I was wondering if you'd be able to copyedit the John Christie (murderer) article. I'm in the process of getting it nominated as a featured article and it's been suggested to me that the article requires more copyediting. If you could go through it and fix up any errors, that would very much be appreciated. Cheers, Wcp07 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm currently in the middle of something so can't get to it right away, but if it can wait a few hours I'd be more than happy to do it. --Shirik (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, there's no rush. Thanks for going to the trouble of copyediting it. Wcp07 (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I spent about an hour and a half doing a copyedit on the article. It was fairly well-written already but I did make some touchups. Please let me know if you have any concerns! --Shirik (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for setting aside the time to do the copyediting, your work has greatly improved the article. You have very good copyediting skills! Wcp07 (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In celebration, appreciate and tremendous thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your extensive, amazing and excellent copyediting of Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak Basket of Puppies 07:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks a lot! --Shirik (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

List of adventure films

Thanks for beating me to the punch on the vandal on the list of genre films page. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, sorry :) I just figured you were a bit annoyed and wanted to help out. Hope you don't mind. I've watchlisted the page as he seems to be continuing to revert, so I'll keep an eye on it too. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do! I'm out to take some friends out to a casino, so I can't watch it forever! Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: WSVG

It isn't incorrect, the information is from several sources, one being the FCC. Gimme a moment and let me provide two sources. I reverted your revert, but accidently hit the Vandalism button instead of Rollback. That was a mistake on my part and I apologize for that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see your talk page before throwing templates at me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I can only go so fast; the templates were given before I had seen any messages from you here. Hopefully you can find some sources for it, that's all I'm looking for. But please note that you've already violated WP:3RR. I'm willing to assume good faith here, but the other reversions you've done on the article are also not vandalism, as they were marked. Anyway, this discussion might as well continue on the article's talk page; hopefully we can find some sources for it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the WSVG page now. It has three references, one from a transaction reporting site, one from the FCC and one from the station's own "About Us" page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! The only reason I was removing it was because there were some people saying it was wrong, some people saying it was right, and there was no source to confirm one way or another (and I am not someone who can judge which is right). In such a controversial situation with no source to claim that the fact is right, it should be removed. Now that this has been confirmed, we can move forward. I only ask that you try to be a little more careful with the "vandalism" button, as this should only be used for blatant vandalism, and I wouldn't call any of the edits in that article blatantly unconstructive. Thanks for your work in resolving this issue! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do ask that the other users, who claimed to the point of creating multiple accounts, are warned not to edit war as well. This was solved simply by adding a reference, which is all they had to ask, not vandalize (I still feel it was that) and edit war. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did mention to the user while he was in the channel that edit summaries should be left as to why the changes were being made, and that this probably would have alleviated the issues that arose here. At this point I don't think it's really reasonable to toss a warning template onto his page as he's aware of what went on and what needed to change. Since the issue is resolved, it's best not to kick up more dirt. I'm sure you both were trying to be constructive; I only moved in as a neutral party to try to resolve the conflict peacefully, which seems to be where we are now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...I am cool with the "not-kicking-up-of-dirt" idea. I have the page on my watchlist (as I have for about 2 years) so I will watch for any further edits by those users. I doubt, though, with the references, any will come. I think, thankfully, this is the conclusion of this situation. Thanks for your help. Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)