Thank you for your help on the Silent Hill page. Thanks!Dlohcierekim 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the help, much appreciated. Ollie 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) --Rory096 04:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!

• Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks

Strom 21:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rory096, It's me Daniel5127. I want to give you Barn-Star for fighting with vandalism. There are many vandalisms more than last months. So, This is for you. HeHe. Please leave the message on my talk-page. I'm so glad about your working.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for fighting with Vandalism. I want to give you Barn-star for that. This has been given by Daniel5127, 00:38, 6 May 2006(UTC).

Daniel5127, 00:39, 6 May 2006(UTC)

Image:Chit anatomy of a counter dunkerque.jpgchit anatomy of a counter dunkerque.jpg - I asked and received permission from the publisher to use this on Wikipedia. Is this what you were looking for? If so, please unmark it for deletion and also note that here. If not, let me know on my talk page what else I need to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffrey Henning (talk • contribs).

You tagged this image as no source. It's sourced, though worded badly and with no fancy tag. It's a screenshot of wikipedia, taken by me, which is copyrighted to the Wikimedia foundation, and used under fair use (it's fair use because it's wikipedia and being used on wikipedia). There's a specific tag for it, but I couldn't find it at the time I uploaded it. Anyway, maybe you could tag it properly for me? I've been really busy lately. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I see that you are a pro-Cannabis Wikipedian so I hope this will be of some interest to you.

I've started a Marijuana wiki (aka The Sticky Wiki) which I think you might be interested in. I'm hoping you can help me get started with this project. Whereas lots of articles about weed get speedy-deleted on Wikipedia, they would be totally cool over at MarijuanaWiki. But really I want the site to be more of a marijuana community than merely an encyclopedia.

To give you an example, I want to have city guides about where to score, find pot-friendly cafes, marijuana events, and what represents a good price in that city. Etc. (You can check out the featured article: "Toronto" to see what I mean). I also want to have grow diaries and marijuana blogs. All in all, basically more communal than encyclopedic.

I am in need of admins/moderators, and people experienced with MediaWiki to help build policy, categories, and templates, etc. If you'd be interested in helping me with this project, the URL is MarijuanaWiki

Thanks for your time and consideration. Hope to see you there!

-- nsandwich 00:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard or seen anyone remove and prevent an entire external links section from an article. I certainly understand and condone the trimming of links, but preventing the section altogether? I don't see anything on Wikipedia:External links about this. Futhermore, the inline link to Erowid is a note, and does not link to the URL I provided. I can see no rational justification for such a removal, other than WP:OWN. —Viriditas | Talk 04:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't see why you're saying I'm violating WP:OWN at all; please assume good faith. The external links section was added here by an anon to link to NORML (note that only having a pro-cannabis site would be a violation of WP:NPOV). There was no previous discussion and no consensus to implement this. After that, there were several additions of spam websites, making it clear that the section would need a lot of monitoring by editors to make sure it didn't become completely full of spam. From this information, I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the section entirely (until, of course, consensus was generated on the talk page, which would override boldness). I'm not really sure what the problem is. --Rory096 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been here since 2004, but I've never heard of an external links section needing consensus, let alone a link to the main cannabis page on Erowid, which is currently not linked to the article. If you have a problem with having an external links section, let alone a link to Erowid on Cannabis (drug), then please use the discussion page. Like I said, I understand and condone the trimming of links, but not the removal of an external links section with a link to Erowid. If there is no objection from you on the talk page regarding this point, then I would like to add the external links section back in with a link to Erowid. —Viriditas | Talk 09:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there's no need for you to respond on both talk pages, although I appreciate your effort. If you like, you can just respond in one place, and I'll follow the discussion. In fact, I wouldn't mind if you just moved the discussion to one place, such as the article talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for vandalfighting, updating the edit count, etc on my userpage! — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 08:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG, how'd you know it was me????  ;) Anyway, no problem! --Rory096 08:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to talk about it before removing all the illustrations on this page? I tried to invite a discussion after reverting you the first time. FWIW, if you are going to trash all the illustrations on this page, you probably ought to do the same at good girl art as well, if only for consistency's sake. Smerdis of Tlön 11:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely rewritten the article. Please consider withdrawing your nomination. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the extant delete votes are now keeps, so you're free to withdraw. Isopropyl 14:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Rome was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Since you asked nicely, unlike Doc_glasgow (talk · contribs) I changed it. I think the policy is dumb and I'm disputing it. Ardenn 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure you shouldn't close AfD's, even if it's withdrawn and uncontroversial. I think by policy you should wait until an admin does it. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions says non-admins can close uncontroversial (and withdrawn, as there's no point in having a withdrawn AfD left unclosed in the log) AfDs. --Rory096 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged Image:Mafhfhcvnin.jpg, Image:Ssue 11030623.jpg, and Image:Ssue 110306 33.jpg for speedy deletion as vandalism. I am unable to see how these images constitute vandalism, so I have removed the speedy tags. If you can clarify why these images are vandalism, please post a message on the image talk pages or on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While true that they're not exactly vandalism, the user (who is actually a sock) is now indefinitely blocked for forgery and also uploading and submitting in articles massive copyvios; see AN/I. --Rory096 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. {{db-banned}} works in that case. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I noticed that you've made some edits to bypass redirects. Although it's not generally known, the guidelines actually recommend to leave such links alone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While true, that section only really addresses server load. Bypassing redirects is good to reduce chances of having double redirects (which are bad because they make people click an extra link), especially when it's not doing something like [[direct|indirect]], as the link I did was piped anyway (assuming we're talking about the one I did in The Colbert Report, which was the only one I did recently, IIRC. (Interestingly, there was recently a discussion in Wikipedia about this with me arguing the WP:REDIRECT side, but whatever) --Rory096 04:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source to back up the "highly addictive" and the "withdrawal symptoms" part - http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA050406.heroin.KENS.90a1956.html - This San Antonio news article states both. WhisperToMe 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the WP:AN/I, you meant that Prin had the socks, not Anwar right?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll clarify that. --Rory096 07:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I db'd the page without even noticing the vandalism on the user page. Cheers. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharcyde is a hit rap group with an article, and J-Swift was a member of that group. 1 more hit isn't on IMDB but it apparently does exist. J-Swift is arguably notable by WP:MUSIC, and there is no official guideline for notability of a movie (and it certainly wouldn't depend on the Alexa rank of the movie's web page), and I'm not convinced this one shouldn't be on WP. Mangojuice^talk 15:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how to put a rationale in? I thought that the Image Book Cover Licensing was good enough. Thanks FrankWilliams 06:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article. I'm still not understanding how to add a rationale. Could you please help? FrankWilliams 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added a blurb. Could you check it out and let me know if it is acceptable? Thanks FrankWilliams 06:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'll make sure I go back to the other images I uploaded. FrankWilliams 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rory096. The picture in question was taken by a GNAA member (the one that gave it to me in first place), released under the GFDL license and posted on wikipedia with his permission. Can you please ask me the next time before going ahead and removing other media that I may upload in the future if I forget to specify some small details on the coyright status? Thanks in advance. Also, please consider that the GNAA is a trolling organizzation and NOT a racist one. The black kid in the picture is beautiful, has a beautiful smile and the picture in itself is sweet. That's why I uploaded it. -- Femmina 23:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your last mesage on my talk page. -- Femmina 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't userfy stuff that was prodded before the five days are up. Be mindful of WP:UFY, which states in relevant part,

Not a substitute for regular deletion processes

Userfication should not be used as a substitute for other deletion processes. Although an article that is subject to speedy deletion can just as easily be userfied, an article that does not meet speedy deletion criteria must go through an appropriate deletion process before being removed from the main article space.

Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A have found a BETTER picture of Nobuo Uematsu - Do not Revert!!

Hi there! Right now I'm processing the backlog at WP:IFD and was wondering why you weren't notifying users that their images were listed at IFD? (For example: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 May 6 lists images you've nominated, yet the uploaders haven't been notified.) This is an issue because all users should be notified about their images being up for deletion, and by not notifying the uploaders about this, the images cannot be processed. If you could start notify uploaders of images you list at IFD in the near future, that would be wonderful! Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, I usually do (unless it's redundant to commons, because then it doesn't affect the image, and will just flood their talk page). I'm not sure why I didn't there. --Rory096 03:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree with your prod, I simply thought that your CSD notice did not fit. Cheers, Ansell 01:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rory, good job spotting broken redirects today. However, I have to ask, what is the edit summary "sp" supposed to mean when you're tagging them for speedy deletion? Doesn't that edit summary usually indicate fixing a spelling mistake? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's supposed to, but I stole it to mean speedies. I now tag all of my speedies with it (well, most, as I spell it wrong about half the time). --Rory096 05:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You included a note on this page indicating that the image is possibly unfree, without telling a word about your reasons. Could you please clarify what your concerns are? Thanks. --KIDB 07:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of any Hungarian regulation prohibiting the use of images, included in Govt. Resolutions, to be freely used on Internet. Have you? By the way, the regulation itself is also available on the Net. --KIDB 07:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All creative content (like pictures and images) is copyrighted by default, and people or governments have to license it or release it into the public domain to make it freely available. --Rory096 07:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian acts and government resolutions (including the one with street signs in its annex) are available on the Internet site of the Government (www.magyarorszag.hu). I hope this is "releasing into the public domain" according to your requirements. If not, please indicate which Hungarian regulation is prohibiting the use of this image. (Drivers' schools, be prepared, if Rory096 finds the legal basis, you will not be able to use this image from tomorrow!) --KIDB 12:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that there would be a prohibition against using an image, but there has to be a law RELEASING it into the public domain (which doesn't just mean having it on their website, they have to legally release it for anyone to use for any purpose) --Rory096 17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Can you please cite the exact law your opinion is based on? (Act No., paragraph No.). --KIDB 06:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright Act of 1976, section 102. --Rory096 06:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Copyright Act No. 76 of 1999, too, for that matter. --Rory096 06:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We found the solution, thank you for your help. According to Paragraph 1§(4): "Nem tartoznak e törvény védelme alá a jogszabályok, az állami irányítás egyéb jogi eszközei, a bírósági vagy hatósági határozatok, a hatósági vagy más hivatalos közlemények és az ügyiratok, valamint a jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett szabványok és más hasonló rendelkezések." this means that legislative texts are not protected by this act, as I supposed.--KIDB 07:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative texts, not images. --Rory096 07:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my English is not perfect. According to this, the image in the annex of a government resolution is not protected. If you don't believe me, plese ask any Hungarian here at Wikipedia. Greetings, --KIDB 07:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if thats an automated script or not but I generaly consider it bad practice to warn the user the second they upload the image... Especialy people like me who generaly upload mass number of images first and THEN add the rationales... --Cat out 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, didn't realize you had just uploaded it a minute before. --Rory096 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:P Well i guess that makes you watchfull ^_^. Sorry I often get tense during my edit storms. --Cat out 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my position on keeping the userbox. I don't see why anyone wants to delete it either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuizQuick (talk • contribs).

Some users don't like userboxes (though I'm not really sure why), and have been trying to get a lot of them deleted. --Rory096 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take fromar:عمرو موسىtr:Amr Musa this picture Image:Amr-Mussa-2.jpg--Tarih 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't have a license. Also, I notice the tr: one is tagged, too. --Rory096 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rory096, just curious to know why you tagged this album cover for deletion? I've upload lots of album covers and was thinking maybe I forgot to do something with this one in particular? I stuck a note in the image Talk Page, but then thought I'd get a fast response here. Let me know if there's something I need to do to correct it or prevent deletion. Thanks. -- eo 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it was tagged it wasn't used in any article (and fair use images have to be used), but I see you put it in one, so I've removed the tag. --Rory096 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the image first, then wrote the article. Thanks for removing the tag. See ya! -- eo

While your enthusiasm for cleaning up images is appreciated, it's stretching the truth more than a little to say that images like Image:Skywalker-Defeats-Dooku.jpg "have no source info". Not only is it properly tagged as a screenshot, the description mentions the name of the movie as well. So let's only use the tag when it's actually valid. Stan 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, screenshots should cite the person who took it, or if the uploader didn't take it, where they found it on the internet. --Rory096 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a WP policy (not guideline) page to cite for that? The identity of the person doing the capturing makes no difference to copyright status, so we don't have any reason to care. Stan 20:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Image use policy says

Source: ... URL of the webpage the image came from

As the image is a screenshot, if he created the image himself, he should be saying that, or if he found it on the internet, he should cite the URL. --Rory096 20:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might cite that - note that the sentence it's a part of says "The recommended image summary contains some or all of the following:", not exactly a hard requirement. In any case, what you're doing is not the norm, and should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy if you want to change things, but note [1] . Stan 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im confused? What do you keep editing on my talk page?? 216.164.203.90 21:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the {{unblock}} tag that clogs up Category:Requests for unblock. --Rory096 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh,ok! 216.164.203.90 21:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hey there Rory096 — I would very much like to Thank you for your support on my recent Nomination for Adminship. It succeeded with a final tally of 85/11/6 and I am now an administrator. Have a present Bastique▼parlervoir 22:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lryics are meant to be on the List of Songs in Sponge Bob. Why are you removing them? How are they copyrighted? ForestH2

The Copyright of 1976 does not apply to this article. What don't you understand about that? I just read the article. ForestH2

Then we shouldn't have the lryics? You see the lryics is what makes the article an actul article.....Forest

Greetings! I tried to move The Fourth Protocol (movie) to The Fourth Protocol (film) in keeping with Wikipedia naming conventions. When I saw that a redirect already existed at The Fourth Protocol (film), I just swapped the article text from one title to the other, rather than having to request a move from an admin. It was for expedience only, not meant as vandalism. The title of the article should be The Fourth Protocol (film). Please consider removing the speedy delete tag. Thanks. Her Pegship 04:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was vandalism, but when you just copy and paste the text from an article, it doesn't preserve the history of it, which is required for the GFDL license that Wikipedia is under. An admin will probably move it to the correct title when they delete the page, otherwise you can just move it there yourself after it's deleted with the little "move" tag at the top of the page. --Rory096 04:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. Okey dokey, I will leave my comment on the talk page; is there somewhere else I can leave it for the putative admin to see? Thanks. Her Pegship 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what it is that's required and what the edit summary "ned" "nrd" means? It was tagged with nosource and removed after I provided it with no other requirments asked for. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also updated the Image:Pizza Pockets box.jpg. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rory,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 15:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Even though I know it would be a terrible thing to do, that big red button on your userpage is really a temptation for wacky new admins; you know, "Wow, a five second block, just to try out the new button!" ;) Of course, you're just about the last person I'd want to block!

What is with you? Why are you busy wrecking my article? I don't know what more you want concerning ownership of the image. I clearly state that it is a detail of another image in Wikipedia Commons. That image is tagged

Copyright © 2003 Torsten Bronger.

What the hell more do you want? Put the map back. B00P 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it from the article, somebody else must have. All I ask is that you change the {{GFDL-presumed}} in that image to {{GFDL-self}} or something. --Rory096 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B00P, please assume good faith and be civil. Accusing other editors of wrecking 'your' article (see also 'ownership' of articles) is almost always an incorrect judgement - it certainly was in this case. Ensuring images are freely licensed is vital, and erring on the side of caution is absolutely the right thing to do. Worldtraveller 23:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Image:Ursa Major constellation detail map.PNG was never deleted and I can't even see that it was removed from the article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the speedy delete prompt on the article Fandango Squad. You are correct---yours is more accurate---so, I have deleted mine. I had already put a prompt up there, but the creator of the page simply removed it, which I believe to be a violation. --Charles 05:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have slapped a clean-up notice on Tobata Gion Yamagasa festival. Could you please explain why? Thanks. --Historian 04:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the prose is a bit forced, like "Also a ladies Yamagasa festival has started." It could use a copyedit. --Rory096 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you enjoy helping out on Wikipedia, on things like cleanup tasks? --HappyCamper 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's boring as hell; I don't know why I do it. --Rory096 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's really appreciated. You're super-duper good at it! :-) --HappyCamper 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually doing much, just going to Special:BrokenRedirects, hitting edit and pasting the speedy tag ;) --Rory096 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty impressed with how diligently you do things around here. Do you think having some extra buttons would be of any use to you on Wikipedia? --HappyCamper 18:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rory096 and I'm sure you'll never think about saying that again ;) --Rory096 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss yourself :-) I trust you, and I like how you are forthright with me about it right now. There were some things I noticed about your account which were not mentioned on that particular request. Perhaps deferring a request a bit longer would be best. Let me take a closer look at what happened, and I'll come back and ask you about adminship again. Sound good? --HappyCamper 19:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether the original creator had made a mistake with the redirect, and so asked at the creator's talk page and was watching the situation. Of course I should have said that in my edit summary. Happy editing and thanks for the redirect nominations, Kusma (討論) 22:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out you were right :-) Kusma (討論) 22:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rory096, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my . Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails. Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales. If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate. For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate! ♫Bucketsofg✐♪

on Wikipedia:Deletion_review you mentioned wanting to see the text of Aww Nigga. Do you still need it? I reviewed it, and it seems worthless to me but I can userify it for you, briefly. I'd want to see it gone again shortly. LMK. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]