Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:45, 9 April 2009

User talk:Ckatz

Ckatz is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.If you have an urgent matter, it may be best to use email. I'll check in when I can, but please understand that circumstances may create a significant delay between when you post and when I am able to respond. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Archives

Page One Page Two Page Three Page Four Page Five Page Six

Frequently asked questions

• Where can I learn more about editing Misplaced Pages?
  • The best place to start is at the Help Desk. Other useful links include the style guide, the list of policies and guidelines, and the guide to editing. Please feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions.
• Why was the link I added removed from an article?
  • Typically, links are removed because they fail the external links guideline. Although many links are deleted because they were placed by spammers, links to good sites are also removed on a regular basis. This is because Misplaced Pages isn't a directory service; the mere fact a site exists does not mean it warrants a link.
• Why was my article deleted?
  • Pages can be deleted for many reasons; there are very specific criteria that govern the process. Please review this article for more information.
• Why was information relating to my company or organization removed?
  • This is a very common question, based on a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's purpose. This project is not a directory, forum, or search engine, and as such it is not a place for you to post advertisements about your company or your product.
• Why were my spelling changes reverted?

Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style recommends the use of regional varieties of English, based on the topic and the article's contribution history. Please avoid changing spellings unless they differ from the appropriate version. Most spell checking software can be configured to use British and American English; some extend this to include other varieties such as Canadian or Australian English.

Brand New Heavies Interview 2009

Hi Ckatz

Would you please review this recent interview with The Brand New Heavies, and see if it is worthy to go up on their entry

http://www.zani.co.uk/interviews.aspx?id=66

Kind regards

Matteo

Revert of E-book art.

I don't get why you removed the update (Bookboon.com) to external links on the "E-book" page? It was clearly referring to a wiki article, and as such not in void of any policies. Unless of course you have good reason to doubt the notability? In which case I would encourage you to look at the site first.

If you have the time, please look in the matter and get back to me.

Best regards N.j.hansen

courtesy notification

Ckatz, As a matter of goodwill, I thought I'd let you know that Greg is going to post a significantly updated version of the Statement against, probably in the next day. Tony (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'm off-line until Sunday night, so I suppose I'll see it then. Cheers. --Ckatz_spy 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Jericho episodes

Hey there. I was rewriting List of Jericho episodes little by little, and I remembered you from this discussion. I was wondering, since you seemed to have that page watchlisted, if you would be interested in helping out before the FLC. I'm kinda blabbing on to that article right now; I really need someone to copy edit my work. Do you think that you could possibly help with that? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

? on links

x 3

Moon

Several weeks ago I made an edit to the Moon article, but a user named Franamax objected to it. So I revised my edit to address his objections. And he was fine with that. A few weeks passed, and someone else objected to the revised edit, and Franamax expanded on those additional objections. So a few days ago I revised my edit again to address those additional objections. And now you removed my twice revised edit, saying you wanted to remove it until Franamax has had a chance to reply.

I agree that Franamax should have a chance to reply. But he already has. So I'm restoring the latest version of my edit. Historically, when he's wanted to reply to something I did, he's made his reply immediately after I did the thing to which he wanted to reply. Now he's had several days to reply to my latest edits. And in those days, he made 54 other edits. If he wanted to post a response, I think he would've done it by now.

You should keep in mind that if he's ok with the edits, he might not post something saying so. When people are debating someone, they're sometimes reluctant to admit when the other person is right. Sometimes they don't say anything at all. A few weeks ago, when we went through the first round of revisions, he never made a post saying they were an improvement.

If you have some reason to object to the latest version of my addition, feel free to say so yourself on the talk page. But I don't see why you would, since there's no reason to object to the latest version of my addition. And you shouldn't presume to make edits on behalf of Franamax. If he wanted to respond, he could do it himself. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Shaheenjim, the edit is obviously disputed, given that more people have objected to it (and removed it) than have supported inclusion. As such, per any number of Wiki quidelines, the onus is on you to achieve consensus *first* rather than to restore the material without consensus. --Ckatz_spy 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

They objected to the old version of the edit. And I addressed all those objections in the new version. No one has raised any objection that applies to the new version. If they have an objection, they should state it on the talk page. I'm going to have to ask you to stop your edit war, and use the talk page to discuss your objections, per Misplaced Pages policy. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, would you care to explain how I am edit warring? Last time I checked Moon's history, you are the one who has repeatedly restored your text without consensus to do so, given that three editors (myself, PhySusie, and most recently Rracecarr) have objected to it this morning alone. --Ckatz_spy 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

On several occasions now I've asked you to post your objections on the talk page, if you have any, per Misplaced Pages policy. But you keep deleting the edit without listing a single objection to it on the talk page. That's edit warring. The only thing you've seemed to say is that you think other people might have objections to it. If they have any objections to it, they can state it themselves. They don't need you deleting it for them. - Shaheenjim (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been quite clear about the need for more discussion on this text, which is a valid reason for removing material; I've been equally clear in moving it to the talk page, rather than just "deleting" it as you claim. Given the objections of others to your restoration of the material in its present form, that seems the appropriate course of action. --Ckatz_spy 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You say that you want to discuss the objections to it, but I've asked you several times now to list your objections, and you haven't listed a single one. Again, if other people want to post objections to it, they can do that themselves. They don't need you to presume to object, or delete, or move things on their behalf. Let's be clear. Do you have any objections of your own, or are you just presuming to speak on the behalf of others? - Shaheenjim (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Human Future

Hello Chartz, There are very few future organizations out there and actually the wiki articles do not have enough referring links for the interested readers who might want to join a future organization or even participate . Few links to our organization had been added to the exact matching articles after discussions on some users talk pages ,so if there was something wrong please move the links to the right place without a complete removal . Thank you--Wiki4ata (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: UC Bill

You're welcome to overturn it if you (or ANI) want - personally, though, from what I saw on his talk page before and after the threat I think it's a lost cause. I trust you to do the right thing. :-) Hersfold 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz, I just noticed your stated intention to restore this user's userpage, though I'm not sure if you realise I've already deleted most of its history, and made a note about this at ANI. I think he made it very clear he did not want the userpage at this time. I would personally want to wait until you've made some other progress with this user before restoring the deleted information, however I will probably miss out on most of the ensuing discussion, so I thought I'd just mention this now, and leave you to adjust the page/user as you see fit. -- zzuuzz 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was going to say "That's fine - in fact, I'll go revert myself on his user page now", but if the the history has been deleted I'll leave it for just now. Depending on how zzuuzz feels, though, I'm ok with removing the indefblock notice. Hersfold 01:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Either blanking or deletion is fine with me. As I say, it seems clear to me that the user does not want the page, and I think this is a courtesy we should afford. -- zzuuzz 02:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User pages

Thank you for being patient, I'll move our pages to wikispaces. I'm still a huge supporter of Misplaced Pages though.--Digipatd 01:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

CKatz—Just to let you know that a revised version of the Statement against (DA) will be posted in maybe six hours. It's become necessary because of the emergence of this patch and what is now a confronting reference to "Assholes" at the link to Bill's "demo" page. Tony (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite#Onerous_response_requirements. Tony (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Ckatz_spy 06:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it.

I was going to self-revert but you beat me to it. As you may have surmised, I was making a point (again). Greg L (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

#formatnumber

We appear to be getting along so well, and I took the part about #formatnumber out after there was no response to me. I don't want to get into an edit war.

Perhaps it's a simple as me doing something wrong, but my problem is that the function does not format dates such as 30 March properly on my screen, March 30 displays as: March 0, 3. It seems that the function must be applied to a dmy or mdy sequence to function; date ranges come out with no transformation. Please refer to User:Ohconfucius/dates_test. Can you comment on these observations, please? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was upset you reverted me without bothering to respond to the messages I left for you here and on the article talk. However, Tony seems to think there is no bug because it's billed to work on 'full dates', so I'm cool with that and I would apologise. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Sorry too - I thought I had left you a note, but it seems I didn't. Must have been the late hour! Thanks again. --Ckatz_spy 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

at fringe (TV series)

was it the strikethough? the rest of the edit was legit. slow down out there. Codigo'll aka Huh? 19:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Several problems existed - the strikethrough, the duplicate text, no edit summary to explain/verify the note re: Homeland Security. --Ckatz_spy 22:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Lakes Circle Tour

I note that you have followed me around and deleted the following: The Great Lakes Circle Tour is a designated scenic road system connecting all of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. This is factually correct and pertinent in the articles, all of which involve Great Lakes states or provinces. It was a minimal geographic reference. I assume your good faith, but appeal to your reason. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) stan

Thanks for the note. The text doesn't seem necessary for the main articles about these provinces and states. (I think a couple of other editors have also removed it or moved it to the talk page in some cases.) I've only removed it from the more general articles; it seems better suited to the ones I left, such as those on the lakes themselves and on tourism. --Ckatz_spy 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, removed one from a "Lake" article; I've restored that. --Ckatz_spy 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean Lake Ontario. I thought perhaps your memory was slipping, or you had such a paroxysm of deletion that you had no imprinted recollection. I think that Wisconsin and Ontario have so much of this that it does not hurt to reference them. I think Ohio would qualify. This was not a WP:spam situation, just so we are clear. To characterize this as a "tourism" link ignores the central importance of the Great Lakes to these areas. I don't know where you are from, but here in Michigan we would consider you to have ignored certain geographic and economic realities. I'm trying to avoid anything like edit warring. This is as legitimate paragraph with a legitimate reference. Please reconsider. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Stan

Perhaps you overlooked Saint Lawrence River. While you use "tourism" as an epithet, I think that a lot of "tourists" may find such information halpful. It is also part of a basic industry for a lot of these places, not to mention a geographic fact that this route is there, and that it is well supported and documented (it happens to be a citation to a very good website, and it was not put in as an External Link). Indeed, you eliminated not just the external reefernece, but the internal wiki link. I think a lot of users might benefit. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Stan

No, not spam for sure. However, I'd suggest giving editors a chance to respond at the talk page where another editor moved the text... it was one of the US states if I recall correctly. As for the idea of providing tourism information, there is a difference between tourism and encyclopedic content. Believe me, I can understand the importance of the Lakes to the local states and provinces... after all, British Columbia's tourism industry is one of its top employers. However, the main article (British Columbia)doesn't list the tourism routes. --Ckatz_spy 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, what I did in Indiana was write directly to the editor. I then adopted his suggested change that 'it did not merit a section' -- I eliminated the section heading -- and I also tied it into the local article. That one would not mention the coastal highway in B.C. -- I've driven it many times on my way to Whistler-Blackcomb -- only saddens me. I do not think it a paradign to emulate. As I said, you eliminated not only the reference (Iwe're supposed to have references) but the internal link. IMHO, this was 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Stan

As I said, the material (all text, not just an EL) was removed because it did not seem necessary for the main article. It is better suited to a sub-article instead. As well, other editors have questioned the appropriateness of the text for similar reasons; SandyGeorgia removed it from the Minnesota article, to which someone else commented : "It was out of place in Geography, unneeded for a high-level, overview article like this, and the target article is completely undeveloped. It was properly removed; thanks." Look, the information is useful - just not everywhere that you placed it. I would think that it is best suited to the articles on the Lakes and the Saint Lawrence River, which is why I didn't remove it from those articles. --Ckatz_spy 17:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding link on Sustainability

Hello Ckatz,

I put out a discussion on the talk page of Sustainability to put an external link. After it was OKed I put it there. However the user Themfromspace has been consistently vandalising my attempts to do so. This is very disruptive. Probably since he is just an undergraduate student his immaturity shows. He has done so many times to other users also. I will greatly appreciate if you please read the link and respond. Thanks for your help.

Ruralface (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chatz,

I observe that you have been removing various links regarding renewable energy and solar energy. All these links carry nariphaltan.virtualave.net. It is really sad that withut even looking at the material in the links you are removing them. They are important contribution to the science and technology of solar and other energies. You can google htem and you will see for yourself them quite high on it. The whole purpose of Misplaced Pages is to give knowledge and if the link belongs to an organization is it a crime?

I will appreciate if you please refrain from unnecessary removal of links and references.

Ruralface (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your spurious accusations of "vandalism" to the contrary, the links do not appear to meet the requirements Misplaced Pages outlines in the various guidelines covering sources and links. As well, much if not all of the text removed appeared to serve little purpose other than as a rationale for including a link to your sites. As for the links, they again did not appear to meet the requirements. --Ckatz_spy 17:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz. I've left a final warning for Ruralface about adding links. More at my Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Future of Human Evolution

FYI, with regards to this site, there have been a series of single-purpose accounts created exclusively to add links to it. At this point, it should be considered spam unless you see some value to it. Thanks. --Ckatz_spy 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. For the record, I don't see some value to it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC on date-autoformatting and the linking of date fragments

The issues of automatic date formatting and date linking have been the subject of an ongoing Arbitration Committee hearing, which has commissioned a "Request for Comments" (RFC) to assist in resolving the matter. The RfC is currently under way, and your input is important in ensuring that opinions are received from the entire community. If you should wish to participate, the RfC can be found here. --Ckatz_spy 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving response comments

I'm not the greatest fan of moving reponse comments on polling pages (e.g. to here). The point of providing comments (in situ) is that obvious misunderstandings can be read by people who are about to vote—which could perhaps help them to make up their minds. There is no way that anyone (who is about to vote) is going to scroll to the end of the page to read out-of-place comments. This shouldn't be about neatness. Cheers.  HWV258  00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan has stated that he does not want threaded comments in the for/against areas; hence his cleanup earlier today. --Ckatz_spy 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You may as well ban all response comments (and move the entire section at the bottom of the page to another page), as no one is going to scroll down there to see what they are about.  HWV258  04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Magnet Renewable Energy

I would like to know if you can restore my page about magnet renewable energy. I would like to add dated prod-Deprod-oldprodfull-Oldprod-hangon tags

Ckatz is busy so I'll take the liberty of responding. I dont think you understand what those tags are for. Your edits were removed because they lacked proper sources. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS before editing any further.--RadioFan (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 6

FYI I think /Archive 6 should have {{archive-nav|6}} (the '6' argument is missing). I'm not quite bold enough to fix it myself. No reply needed, but I'll look here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it - fixed things right up. (Not sure what happened, as the header is generated by the 'bot.) --Ckatz_spy 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica infobox changes

Hi, I'm not sure why you chose to remove all the "last appearance" information from the BSG character infoboxes. It's part of the WikiProject BSG character template guidelines. Please let me know.Aatrek (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Wiki4ata

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've always wondered how to do that. --Ckatz_spy 21:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kara Thrace

You removed a request for citation. You assert that she is human, the talk page asserts that she is an angel, while others assert that she is both or was one and then another. Either way, it needs a reliable citation or should be removed as it is challenged. See WP:V. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing of Webcuts link

Ckatz, what is your rationale for removing The Webcuts album review link in A_Woman_a_Man_Walked_By. It fufills the criteria as outlined in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Misplaced Pages's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." If Webcuts isn't considered a reliable source then there are many albums which link to similar such webzines (e.g Dig,_Lazarus,_Dig!!! / Wireless Bollinger)--paperjunk (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

North America

Dear Ckatz,

I´d like to comment in the section of the countries that are considered part of North America. I see in history that you made changes. I'm not sure if you wrote most of it or not, but we can discuss the content anway.

"Central America comprises the southern region of the continent...", I thought that North America is not a continent, but rather ther is an american continent divided in North, Central and South America. What do you think?

Then, I saw that somebody changed a line that you placed back: "the European Union excludes both Mexico and Belize from the area" (refering to North America). "Geopolitically, Mexico is frequently not considered a part of Central America." These sentences don't make any sense to me. I am european and I never heard that Mexico is not part of North America. If the European Union says that, where is the reference?. If Mexico is frequently not considered part of Central America, from where is it consider from? I assume from North America, why not say it? I checked ref. 14 and says that only the south of Mexico is not considered part of North America. Strange sentence for that reference.

Interestingly, I checked the Spanish article in wikipedia and it says that North America is composed by Canada, USA and Mexico. I checked some spanish sites and all say the same, while some anglosaxon sites tend to exclude Mexico. Maybe would be inetersting to mention this situation from a neutral perspective.

Kind regards, Arkadia

Amg templates

Hello, Ckatz …

Why have you been blindly reverting the additions aI have recently made to beau coup articles, such as

Richard Hatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I spent a lot of time researching links to provide {{Amg name}}, {{Imdb name}}, {{TV Guide person}}, and {{tv.com person}} templates for them ... I use this boilerplate and a checklist like this.

So, what's the dealeo?

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)}

FYI, they weren't "blind reverts" - as per the message I've already left on your page, the TV project doesn't sanction default links to those sites. The preferred approach is to avoid long EL sections where possible, as per the Manual of Style. --Ckatz_spy 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, then which of the four do you feel are Most Appropriate? Surely {{TV Guide person}} should be used for TV actors, while {{Amg name}} might be inappropriate … I have no problem with distinct boiler plates for TV actors, and another like this for actors such as Tony Randall, who has an IBDb entry since his career spanned Broadway roles … I'm really more interested in cleanups such as using templates like {{Official}} and {{MySpace}} where appropriate (some of your reverts undid those as well) … can we find a consensus? — 138.88.91.205 (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Amg templates … update

Hello again, Ckatz …

FYI, I am adding {{TV Guide person}} to articles from these checklists that you recently reverted, like with Kandyse McClure … I understand now about "over-linking", and I agree with you that {{Amg name}} is not an appropriate template for a "TV" actor, but I think that you will also agree with me that a link to TV Guide is a better WP:EL than Allmovie, which I have also been replacing, like with Tricia Helfer. :-)

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)}

BC-TV Template

Hello Ckatz. While I do see where you are going with this and what you are trying to imply, but I think that the Vancouver/Bellingham templates should be merged into one template for mainly two reasons. The first being the Detroit and Windsor templates are one, with both American and Canadian locals in one template. It would make sense to put Bellingham in the Vancouver template as Bellingham is closer to Vancouver than Seattle. The second being KVOS is not carried on cable anywhere south of Skagit county, I believe, and both KBCB and KVOS have poor over the air penetration in Seattle and it's northern suburbs (Everett, Bellevue, Lynnwood, Bothell, etc.). While technically KVOS is an American station, most of its ads and the programming is target to Canadians, and little programming (like NW Notebook) is targeted to Americans. That is why I believe the Bellingham section in the Seattle template should be in the Vancouver template. Thanks.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that this is a British Columbia template, not just a Vancouver one. (Even if it were just Vancouver, there's a big difference between Detroit Windsor and Vancouver/Bellingham.) There are some other reasons; I'll add more later (ASAP) to better explain, but have to go offline for a short while (sorry). --Ckatz_spy 05:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Waters of Mars

Hi; is there any particular reason you chose to unilaterally undo over an hour's careful work and sourcing because you've decided that the reference is inadequate? The source clearly separates what it considers to be rumours, and what is fact; and it is from a reliable publication. Why is it any better to undo this likely move now, than to undo a less likely incorrect move later? And since I'm at 3RR, could you consider undoing it per the discussion? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes

Hi, could you please explain to me why you reverted my edit to the calvin and hobbes article? I do not see how a detailed description of the person in the reference is necessary when the reference exists only to demonstrate that it is used in a classroom setting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.246.196 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stargate Atlantis

I have not REWRITTEN it, with the exception of the plot overview. Its the same article. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Werdna bashing

Egads! Sorry, I wasn't trying to put down Werdna; I guess I was just getting a bit over-emphatic about one of the rare points of agreement between me and the autoformatting opponents. I have nothing but respect for the technical skills of the Wikimedia developers — my only complaint is that Werdna completely ignored the ongoing discussion as well as the vast majority of the discussion on the bugzilla page itself (where it had been made pretty clear that the original request shouldn't have been fulfilled, and several alternate solutions had been discussed.) Since his patch was actually a new feature and not a bugfix, it really should have been proposed to the community first — especially given the months and months of fairly heated debate and an ongoing arbcom case surrounding the issue. A lot of the complaint on the anti-autoformatting side stems from mistrust of the developers, so I'm leery of anything that contributes to that mistrust, or to the perception that the developers consider themselves above the community process. I'd explain myself at the poll talk page but I'm abiding by a self-imposed ban from editing there for a while.. and I'd apologize to Werdna directly, except that a) I doubt he reads that page and b) he doesn't seem to read his en-wiki talk page, either. Not that I blame him for that either, given how insane the discussion here has become. :) Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Great Lakes Circle Tour.