User talk:Circeus/june2006

Thank you for helping me clean up that page. I thank you as well, for removing the innacurate data on it (canada's never had a CONFIRMED F5, but the Edmonton Tornado may have been the first...). User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal of the DODGE name on a red background. While the policy preclude the use of tradmarks on templates, the policy to the best of my knowledge does not prevent the use of original artwork, nor the use of shareware (open license) freeware fonts (those fonts which are created and distributed freely) as I used in the image when I created it. In this case, the original artwork, is just that, original artwork, thus this is not a fair use issue. Stude62 01:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Would you mind providing me (at my talk page) a full list of these Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 24#Senate templates that need deletion? Circeus 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They are as follows:
  • {{89th Senate}}
  • {{90th Senate}}
  • {{91st Senate}}
  • {{92nd Senate}}
  • {{93rd Senate}}
  • {{94th Senate}}
  • {{95th Senate}}
  • {{96th Senate}}
  • {{97th Senate}}
  • {{98th Senate}}
  • {{99th Senate}}
  • {{100th Senate}}
  • {{101st Senate}}
  • {{102nd Senate}}
  • {{103rd Senate}}
  • {{104th Senate}}
  • {{105th Senate}}
  • {{106th Senate}}
  • {{107th Senate}}
  • {{108th Senate}}
  • {{109th Senate}}
  • Hope that helped --CapitalR 08:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • answer

I am a newby. I am a photographer and I want to contribute to Wikipedia, but I know zilch about formatting, categorizing, etc.

I ha losts of great images of Mexico, landscapes, cities, people, etc... but I need help in placing them in such a way as to be useful to others.

Can you help?

Thanks!!!

--tomascastelazo 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

comment

Well, true they're both officially English-speaking and most recently British colonies rather than French, I've been expanding both based on the Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, which makes it pretty clear that their music is more French Antillean than English (see both articles, music of Dominica talks about the predominance of French Creole in song lyrics, for example -- I just happened to notice skimming through that article that italicized terms and names begin looking very French then grow more and more English-looking further down in the article and later chronologically -- and music of Saint Lucia, which focuses on the important of the quadrille and also notes the predominance of French Creole lyrics outside of the church. So, I think the most musically informative category is French, irregardless of the official languages, legal status, recent history, etc. The shorter answer is because I already made the same change elsewhere, such as at music of the Lesser Antilles, and wanted everything to be consistent. Tuf-Kat 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

comment

Bonjour Circeus. I have added the translation of the Romanian article titles in English. Thanks,

]

answer

Great, thanks. I'm going to be trying to fill in as many red links as I can and every little bit helps... Tuf-Kat 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Circeus, I remembered your comments regarding jargon on Schatzki ring. Could you have a look at Crohn's disease if you get a chance? I re-wrote a whole heap of it, but it's replete with jargon. Your comments would be appreciated.

Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus, thanks a lot for your suggestions to both articles and your changes to Endoscopic foreign body retrieval! Your jargon reports are very helpful (I write so many other reports daily that it is very easy to fall into jargon on WP). Thanks again -- Samir धर्म 23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you deleted my notes on the name Jennifer in the

entry. I'd be interested to know why. I think the Jennifer craze is a much better example than, say, Keira or Peyton, which the article sites, and which I still left in. 7 June 2006 -KXL

thanks for your ongoing plethora of good technical edits. i think a reference in the intro is your edit to cui-ui needs attention. it doesnt seem to be working, and im unfamiliar with this ref style. could you take a look at it? thanks Covalent 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

aha, i understand. thanks for the quick response Covalent 23:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. CFLeon 01:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had picked the most appropriate template, but it says "second level warning". Sorry if I sent the wrong one. CFLeon 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I don't know what you have against this particular link. Maybe it's commercial competition with a paysite of your's? CFLeon 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relevant discussion

Hi. I noticed you reverted the above page and merged the other articles. Whilst I support the merging of the other articles, I think the merge proposal should have had some time to gain consensus. In particular, I think you made the wrong call in deciding to remove the merge template from Wikipedia:Article series for the same reason as the previous point. Please leave it alone for at least 2 weeks! I was fully intending to merge the pages (rather than simply drawing people's attention to the need for a merge, but hoping someone else would do it), and providing no significant opposition is encountered, I still intend to merge the other 2 pages. Though before I do, the community deserves to have its say.

Moving along to you edit summary: "not all article series have to do with main and subarticles. Also, WP:SS is much more develloped, while this page deals mostly with templates". The first point can (and should) be made explicitly clear on the merged page, and the second point IMO is a good reason for the merge. In the future please post such comments on the talk page so we can have this kind of discussion there. Thanks. -

]

Pando

Thanks for commenting on the

]

Image size/location

Hello, I noticed you changed the images in

]

answer

Ah, thanks for explaining. I think I agree with most of your comments, but I find thumbnail size really too small to be useful without clicking on the image. I may expand one of the better images again, and leave the crappy ones (ie, the ones I took :)) small. Stevage 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

They were around until at least the 19th century. After that, not sure. I don't actually know Dutch, but I'll get the titles translated, and maybe the Latin ones. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 00:06

Many thanks for your comment at

]

polyphenol antioxidant

thank you for your detailed discussion on the talk page. it is not so simple to classify so much of the article as jargon. this is an article about a complex biochemical subject. the language is accepted tehnical and medical literature based. it is well wiki linked to allow the non specialist to explore these normal terms of the subject matter. i dont think we need to talk down to the reader. many other biochemistry and medical articles in wikipedia are written in the same tone. nevertheless i agree the articles ought to be approached by the well educated generalist. i have altered the article to address your comment #1 and i shall work through your list as i have time in the next week or two. please do not conduct wholesale alteration of this article unless you are an expert in this field. the changes you made in the last section had to be reverted because they deleted important facts such as the role of UV-radiation....the central element of the phenomenon. i appreciate your numerous past technical edits on other articles, which tend to be done with surgical precision and would like to keep our relationship amicable. best regards. Anlace 04:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I learned that Saltwood Castle was placed on the DYK page today. Thanks for 1) egging me on to find some ref's and 2) for tidying them up! Verne Equinox 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other relevant discussion: Brya's Talk, MPF's talk

I've been watching this with horror as well (and in fact am watching both their pages and contribs trying to understand it the last couple days). I agree, the edit war should be stopped. However, you should be aware that Brya is engaged in an active edit war against a few others working in

]

I think they've had the discussion before, to no avail (any discussion will be in old versions of Brya's talk... he does not respond on other's talks). It's more or less just a strange form of vandalism (some folks think "purple people suck" are better than constructive information, Brya thinks his POV is more important than the consensus POV). Again, I think intervention might be a good idea, because it's getting prety silly. SB Johnny 15:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Circeus - many thanks for the offer to mediate, which is very much appreciated. It may take me a little while to get my thoughts and points together (I don't find it the easiest of things to do!), maybe later tonight or tomorrow. I'll definitely stay away from editing the disputed pages until the dispute is settled, though - MPF 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my justification for my edits, and subsequent revertion of Brya's reverts, to:

• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words), and removed italics from plant family names (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and common names: "Names of higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized"). If a change to having higher plant taxa in italics is to be made, it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants
  ; it has not been. Therefore the existing style remains applicable.
• Botanical name

Edits for clarity - some changes I made to improve readability and clearer sense, e.g. "a recent publication sets it as counting 342 species" changed to "a recent publication treats it as containing 342 species" (plant families can't count!).

List of examples - I changed these to the names actually used for the articles concerned, i.e.,

Liverworts

)" (which leads to a disambig page), etc.; I also fully linked all the examples, and removed italics from family and higher ranks (as above).

• Loranthaceae (other articles similar).

Taxobox changed to reflect taxobox usage at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage. Taxoboxes are supposed to be uniform in structure; it does not help to change taxoboxes to the two or more different APG-versions I found in a small handful of articles (probably less than 0.1% of plant articles; but disproportionally higher among higher taxa like orders and families). Many orders and families now have taxoboxes very different to those of contained genera and species, which does not look good. If taxoboxes are to be changed, a formal proposal should be made (in plain English

!), so that the changes can be checked for formatting suitability and compatibility, and then changed en masse by a robot editor.

Family description. I tried to edit this for readability, changing odd grammatical constructs like "is the botanical name for a family of" (what's wrong with just "is a family of"?), and (at Ranunculaceae) "Such a family has been universally recognized by taxonomists: it is also known ..." into Plain English that is easier for non-expert readers to understand.

Italics removed from family names - as above.

Genus list. This comes from the Dallwitz reference (which was added by Brya in the first place). A clue to his removing the genus list comes in his new edit [1] to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, "Dallwitz ... Unique resource, updated to about 1998 (note that especially the lists of genera are outdated)". Yet if it is outdated, why does he not update it, with a reference to the newer research? Deleting it because it is 'out of date' without further explanation does not help anyone.

External links. As above. I shortened the excessively long Dallwitz reference; the full title of the site is not necessary, as the link takes one there regardless of the length of the subtitle blurb.

MPF 01:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to come upon this. The latter point is of course well worth commenting on. If Mike Dallwitz and the organization at DELTA go to great lengths to kindly provide descriptions of families (available nowhere else on the internet), then the least we can do is to respect the style of referring to this that has been expressed at the site. I think it is very undignified to force Mike Dallwitz to run round and manually correct all these references. Speaking about contempt!

As to another point mentioned above. In spite of the sentiment expressed above ("it should be easy to create a server with reliable information on the latest taxonomy out of thin air") accurate taxonomic information is hard to come by. For a large plant family it requires a considerable staff working for decades to even get near. Accurate descriptions are even harder to come by. The trick is to make do with the information that is available, and to put that in the right context.

Providing a list of redlinked names of genera (and that is not readable because of faulty layout) that may or may not belong to the family discussed is not helping anybody. All that is communicated by such a list is "this page was put together by somebody who did not know what he was doing". Anybody who is interested in the list of genera as it was according to Mike Dallwitz in 1998 can follow the link and see for himself. At least then he will be aware of the proper context. Brya 06:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you coukd provide such a large piece of justification without refering to a single wikipedia policy or guideline, which is exactly what I requested you to do. On

Misodendraceae, you blatantly violated the manual of style by removing the header formatting of "external links". On Ghillean Prance

, your removal of the IBN is left completely unjustified: How is a biography of the article subject inappropriate to mention in the article? Please do not perform complete revert including edits that are very pertinent.

I several instances you cite violations of the MoS. MPF cited what was actually violated in these pages. I see a user having at best issues with

WP:OWN and now allowing any edit whatsoever, using the MoS without citing which element thereof as catch-all excuse to revert ay edit to his articles, leaving them either incomplete (all family articles include list of genera. Loranthaceae comes across as incomplete work either way) or in blatant violation of the MoS. Circeus 13:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A few points to consider. Many, most, or likely all, family treatments are incomplete and they will remain so until Wikipedia attracts a staff of competent people who devote very considerable time to this. This is not a bad thing when there are sites that can be linked to. Priority should be to avoid giving misinformation.

AFAICT, lists of genera in family treatments are the exception rather than the rule and this is a good thing. At least if giving accurate information is the purpose.

A copy-and-paste of a paragraph of text from a copyrighted site is a violation of copyright (unless a number of conditions are met, and there is not even an attempt here to do so). Also violently against basic Wikipedia guidelines. Brya 05:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have all but given up on being a regular contributor to Wikipedia, largely because it has become evident I was fighting a losing battle against those who were not necessarily more knowledgeable, or better editors, but apparently have limitless time on their hands to edit thousands of articles. However, I have been following this "discussion" with some amusement and feel compelled to come out of retirement to comment.

Brya has (apparently unilaterally) decided to follow a typographical practice for botanical nomenclature used in printing the ICBN that does not even rise to the level of "example" (as defined within the Code): the italicization of all botanical names at all ranks. As others have discovered, this leads to stylistic inconsistency between botanical and zoological Wikipedia articles, and between those botanical articles which Brya has or has not edited. In the end this is about as inconsequential a disagreement as I have ever seen on Wikipedia, but as Brya clearly has no intention of accommodating, cooperating or compromising with, or conceding to, any other editor, and has displayed such breathtaking arrogance in all his (her?) past and present editing, I hereby award him (her?) my "Does Not Play Well With Others" award.

Now to the matter at hand: the ICBN (Saint Louis Code, published 2000), in its preface, states, "As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals."

I became curious as to how "well received" this practice has been and to what extent it has been followed, so I did a quick survey of the most prominent botanical, mycological, and phycological journals in my library. I was hard pressed to find any that italicize botanical names above genus. Of 30 journals I checked, only 3--exactly 10%--have followed the example set by the ICBN. (The actual percentage is probably lower, but I did not check every minor journal.) The journals I found using italicization are Edinburgh Journal of Botany, Mycotaxon, and Kew Bulletin. In my judgment, it would appear that the non-binding practice of the ICBN is little more than a quaint typographical convention that has not been widely adopted. MrDarwin 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

About that, I tried to create a size applicable biography infobox, but then I saw there was already one available, so I just gave up on mine. You can delete if you like, I could never quite get it to work. Registered User 92

comment

Do you mean that the citations are confusing, or what? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 23:24

answer

• Yes, they are the original sources for the content in the article. In Smith's dictionary, they're all abbreviated, and I figured out what most of them were, and gave the full name/title, instead of an abbreviation, wherever possible, but I could not figure them all out. However, maybe someone else will come along and solve that. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 23:44
• I figure, as long as we have the original sources at hand, we might as well include them, especially since Smith's writing style focuses so much on the original sources, rather than attempting to write his own overly-broad interpretation. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 23:45

Whatever program you're using couldn't handle Greek letters. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-18 03:00

answer

Can you please leave the template alone? You are wrecking a lot of good work people have done. There are plenty of other templates like this on Wikipedia and no one has a problem with them. Why are you taking it out on ours? Please stop it. I'm annoyed that you would just go ahead and delete stuff without even asking users on WikiProject Sydney, who had approved the template for use. (

]

answer

What are we supposed to do then? It was written specifically to fit in with that image and was appoved by other users- you've stuffed up our work and we don't have antyhing to fall back on. I am really annoyed because I put a lot of work into making that look good, and I'm annoyed that you wouldn't even let people talk about it. You have still not addressed my question about informing people either. (

JROBBO 00:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply

]

answer

Thanks for uploading

, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copied to original uploader's talk

comment

There are sometimes

]

answer

reply

I have emailed Alex Sergeev, the holder the pictures in question, using one of the prepared letters issued forth by the Wikipedia organization, and he has assented to the use of his pictures. Also, I have forwarded the email response of Mr. Alex Sergeev to the Wikipedia organization, at the address of [email protected]. Since, the above mentioned steps have occurred, I believe the the time has come for the scheduled deletion of the photographs on the Cornell University page to be suspended. Thank you.--Cornell010 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

answer

Small is so hard to read, and seems to make everything "small" that comes after it. KarenAnn 00:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

]

Edit buttons

Just thought I'd check with you before I make further changes: Is there any particular reason why you removed the edit button from Template:Evolution? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Necessary? How about "convenient"? Seeing that this is a volunteer project, life should be made easy for everyone. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to avoid making a third revert on

]

RfC opened

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Brya. This is going nowhere at the moment. SB Johnny 09:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Yes, I saw that, thanks for the excellent detail in the review. SCHZMO ✍ 11:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have wised up to the requirement of having sources for his images. That was the reason for my self revert here. He has declared that he made his pictures (at least Image:Plaza_toll.gif and Image:Expressway_interchange4.GIF) himself. And it looks quite likely - the lines on the latter are evidently drawn by an amateur, most likely himself. Now if we can make him write the correct source description for his other images... Kimchi.sg 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

As a recent participant in the

]

Hello

--Bhadani 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus: Thanks for your edits of the new article

]

Template categorization

Hello, Circeus

I noticed that you added the Category:Citation templates tag to Template:FishBase species alt. It seems to have had the undesirable effect of adding any article that includes that citation template (example: Spotted barb) to the Citation templates category as well. I can see what it is you're trying to accomplish and it certainly would help to have such a category, but I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know how to accomplish it without that side effect. Perhaps the category needs to be on the template's talk page instead? Neil916 16:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured it out. Neil916

I agree with your change. Too bad it looks so ugly. --Usgnus

answer

Well, accessibility always wins over appearance in my book. I'm glad you like it better this way. :-) --Usgnus 23:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't done a DYK for a year and didn't know about that being a new requirement. Let me know if the references I provided work for the requirement. --ScienceApologist 00:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you move it, I couldn't do it, because the way I normally do it is to type in what I want and start a new user page, but if you typed in User:AnnaKucsma/Geography/France, it just went to the article, and didnt ask about starting a user page, so how did you do it? Philc _T^E_C^I 00:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

comment

Please give me advice on what to do. I don't want to make mistakes and make a fool of myself, but I have been reading over all of the dispute options and I just feel more confused than ever. It is glaringly obvious that the user in question has been cited on more than one occasion for inappropriate behaviour, and yet it continues. I do not feel that the "lesser" steps in resolving the issue are going to do anything other than waste time because it seems that other users have followed them before, multiple times, for many reasons, and without ultimate success. How do I ask for an administrator to step in and take action? Pacian 05:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

I would say his most recent paragraph on my talk page makes it clear that he has no interest in being civil to me, or to anyone. Pacian 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

I've unblocked Haizum for the time being. See his talk page for more info. He's commented that he'll try to tone down some of the sarcasm and try and play nice. If you feel I have erred, don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Thanks for your comment. There was no confusion - what's separated by a semi-colon are two separate thoughts entirely. However, thanks for bringing the cite news template to my attention. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Thanks for the heads-up. I have added footnotes. This one is in the local news are they are now talking about digging it up and recovering the train and bodies! Mark Vaoverland 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Je vois que vous parlez le français, que je'apprends á l'école. Donc, je vous écrirai en français. Je voudrais vous remercir pour avoir redessiné:

que j'ai créé. J'essayais en créer un trés similaire à ce que ce que vous avez fait, mais je ne savais pas y faire. Alors, merci. (J'éspere ne pas avoir fait des fautes! - Je n'apprends que le français depuis quatre ans.)

Lofty 15:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

thanks for the constructive editing and kind words. ive added the cite to the one i found. where is the other one? by the way i dont know the cite format editing to cite the same source twice and only have it appear once in the ref list. could you help me with that element? thanks. regards. Anlace 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

one more cite added. working on the last one. may take a while to find the best one. thanks for the repair on multiple cites to same ref. i couldnt figure out doing it from the wiki source you gave me. Anlace 05:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

notice for IFD

I uploaded Sovereign_Hill.jpg because I did not think the image there before it (Sovereign_hill_window.jpg), was appropriate and did not meet image quality standards. Ansett 05:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

G'day,
I noticed you using this markup for the references in article Celia Rosser. I was wondering, when an article has an external links section after the references section, should both be made small, or should the external links section be big again? Neither option seems particularly attractive to me. Snottygobble 05:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

I have no intention of reverting; I think it looks better, except that the reversion to larger text afterwards looks a bit strange. I wanted to do the same on Banksia brownii but wasn't sure how to proceed. Thanks. Snottygobble 05:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

extra answer

Thanks for all the cleanup on Banksia articles. Nice to have your help. Snottygobble 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't realised that you were cleaning up DYK articles. I thought you were specifically hanging around Banksia. Thanks for the offer; I'll bear that in mind. Snottygobble 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind going over Banksia brownii for me? As soon as there's evidence of stability, I want to push it through GA. Snottygobble 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew that. Sometimes I do these silly things anyhow. ;) Snottygobble 02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'll get back to it shortly. Snottygobble 03:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing my articles! On June 29,you added "persondata" at Alexander Korzhakov - what's the practical implication of "persondata"? Odengatan 08:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Thank you for your assistance on the Alevtina Kolchina article. It earned an DYK yesterday. I look forward to working with you in future endeavours. Chris 12:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up on the birth year confusion! I'd forgotten to change the category after I changed the birth year in the article. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

You said the article I initiated is ineligible for "Did You Know.." because I did not cite my source -- but I cited two books which laid the foundation for this school of theory; did I not cite them properly enough?

Thanks for the guidance as I try to find a way to be useful around here. -- Scartol 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer