Hi GabeMC, welcome to Wikipedia!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding a citation clarifying the bit about the settlement [1]! A hint: If you are citing the same reference twice, you can consolidate the footnotes into one, as I did here. See Help:Footnotes#Multiple_citations_of_the_same_reference_or_footnote.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like SFN is the preferred method. GabeMc (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Day in the Life is The Beatles most iconic song EVER, it's not mine, nor John's opinion, it is fact.GabeMc (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new, just don't know all the rules yet, those mistakes were accidental I assure you, I'm not trying to be an anarchist, I will learn. GabeMc (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn about talk page edits here: Wikipedia:Talk page. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the talk page. When you edit the page, stick to these rules for the time being:

1. Add one comment at a time, that is, if you want to respond to a comment in section A and a different comment in section B, use two edits.
2. Indent your comment one level more than the comment you are responding to.
3. Try to remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~); there's some blue text under the edit window you can click to add those 4 tildes easily.

— John Cardinal (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

today's contributions to the Lennon page were exellent. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HotCop2, I appreciate the pointers and tips, and the pos reinforcement.GabeMc (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HotCopy, but I'll be happier when you drop the "Lennon vs. McCartney" part of your persona (see [2]). They were both great, and there's no reason to pit them against each other here or anywhere else. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again John, but seriously, was Paul a peace activist? I never knew. GabeMc (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, unfortunately John's been gone 30 years; even when he was alive Paul was running rings around him output/projectwise. Besides, sometimes less is more. You see? You learned something on Wiki about Paul. Hotcop2 (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To HotCop2: John has had more American #1 hits since his murder than Paul has. Paul's last US hit was 1983, one of his many co-written hits. That's why I say the phrase "responsible for 32 hits" is not accurate since most had co-writers. GabeMc (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think McCartney was a peace activist; some of his albums have peace as a recurring theme, but that's hardly the crusading activity that I associate with the phrase. If you think that should be removed from the McCartney article, make a case for the change on the talk page. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken, I agree 100%, there should be no competition between pages or artists. I only meant Paul's first paragraph seems top-heavy, many of the achievments listed in the first paragraph are listed again in their own section at the bottom verbatim. GabeMc (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be like that. Exactly like that. That's what I was trying to explain before, but you still keep saying "top-heavy" so maybe I didn't succeed or you missed the link I provided. You can find more about why the lead section should be like that at WP:LEAD. PL290 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PL290, I say top-heavy cause that was the term given to me by others for NOT being able to make John's first section more weighty. I agree, with you PL290, I think the top section should be a summarry of the article. I think the first sectiojn is the most likely to be read by a random wiki visitor. GabeMc (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMC, your recent edits to this page go against Wikipedia policy: you're not supposed to selectively delete parts of conversations. You can archive entire sections, but you should not delete parts of sections willy-nilly. I think you made the edits in good faith, but the guidelines exist for a reason and you should follow them. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more information. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again, thought I could edit My User Page at will and only leave what I needed. Seems like it would get very hard to follow in time if everything builds up without any editing. After a point is taken need it be permanate?. GabeMc (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have (almost) complete control over your user page (User:GameMc). Your tlak page is subject to the same rules as other talk pages. You can prevent the page from becoming too large by archive old material. There are a couple ways to do that. Read the pages at the links I provided; it makes no sense for me to repeat the rules here for you. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you're fond of writing the complete answer to an interview question; sometimes a bit of the quote is all we need. Since they all -- especially John -- changed their minds in interviews, and misremembered things, quotes from them are not necessarily necessary here. We do not need that many quotes, it starts to resemble a magazine article. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, thanks for your help. GabeMc (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been adding some quotes lately, and sourcing them, which is good. Unfortunately, you often enter the bare URL for web sources, such as in this edit. When you specify a web source, please provide the title of the page, the author name and date (if those are present), the name of the web site, the url, and the date you accessed it. You can use the {{cite web}} template or format it by hand. So, the following would be a lot better than what you did:

<ref>{{cite web |title=1975 Rolling Stone Interview with John Lennon |work=John-Lennon.com

|url=http://www.john-lennon.com/1975rollingstoneinterview.htm |accessdate=27 February 2010</ref>}}

It's a bit more to type, but it's much more useful in the list of references:

1. "1975 Rolling Stone Interview With John Lennon". John-Lennon.com. Retrieved 27 February 2010.

— John Cardinal (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the work you're citing is already listed in the References section, your citation can be simpler because you don't have to fully define the work each time. There are several different citation formats in use on WP, and editors have varying preferences about them, so we try to stick to the format an article already uses. You should be able to see all this if you look over some existing citations. Anyway, if this is all too complicated at the moment, don't worry, just keep adding what info you can. As John says, it's good that you're adding refs at all, because per WP:Verifiability they are fundamental to the encyclopedia, yet editors sometimes don't bother and their potentially useful contributions are lost because they get removed. PL290 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the help, I understand fully, I will definately learn to cite as you suggested. GabeMc (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This format seemed to work better: <ref>{{Citation |url=http://www.pink-floyd.org/artint/mojointw.htm |title=1999 Mojo Interview with Waters, Gilmour, Wright, Mason, Guthrie, Scarffe and Ezrin.|accessdate=2010-02-27 }}</ref> GabeMc (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is nice too:

1. <ref>{{Citation |url= http://nfo.net/usa/365a.htm |title=RIAA's 365 TOP SELLING SONGS OF THE 20th CENTURY |accessdate=2010-02-27 }}</ref>

I changed your examples above so that the wikicode would show; otherwise, it's hard to understand what you meant. (I've bent the rules by editing your submission, so feel free to revert this if you object). To show wikicode on a talk page, you use the <nowiki> and </nowiki> tags. I also added the <code> and </code> tags. When you wrap those around the text, as I have now done above, the text will show on the page, and it will be formatted in a font that is intended for wikicode and other text that you want to set off from the other prose.

No matter which template you use, don't omit the web site name. It's usually specified using the |work= parameter. The web site name is akin to a newspaper name or magazine name. So, for example, tif you cite something from Allmusic, add |work=Allmusic. Some web site names look like URL fragments or domain names, but only specify something like that if it's the way the web site refers to itself. So, for example, |work=John-Lennon.com is OK because that's how the web site refers to itself. |work=news.bbc.co.uk is not right, because that web site calls itself BBC News (though that depends on which part of the site you are on), and so you should use |work=BBC News.

Be careful with titles for web pages. When citing a source, you should use its exact title. That can be hard with web pages, because the titles are often ambiguous. The official title of a web page appears in the browser window's title bar, but sites often include other information there, like the name of the web site, the section of the web site, and the title of the article. In other cases, there will be similar, but different titles mentioned in the title bar compared to the text on the page. For your Pink Floyd example, you gave the title as "1999 Mojo Interview with Waters, Gilmour, Wright, Mason, Guthrie, Scarffe and Ezrin." That's not the title, at least, it's not shown in the title bar of the browser window or anywhere on the web page at the URL you specified. The title is apparently "The MOJO Interview", but given that isn't very specific, you could use that and then add an editor comment. So, |title=The MOJO Interview [1999 Mojo Interview with Waters, Gilmour, Wright, Mason, Guthrie, Scarffe and Ezrin]. Don't add any punctuation unless it's part of the official title. The templates add the proper punctuation for you.

Also, if the web page has an author and/or a date, make sure you add those. It's a bit of a guess, but I think the author of the Pink Floyd interview was Sylvie Simmons. I did not see a publication date. You added "1999" to the title you specified, but I don't see a date anywhere on the page, but I admit I didn't read the whole page.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, that page does not appear to be an officially published version of the MOJO content. It's not from the official web site ([3]), and it's not presented in a professional manner (many typos). The URL is for the Pink Floyd Fan Club, and the fan club may have violated the copyright of the MOJO content. Fan club sites are usually not [[WP:RS]|reliable sources]. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, thanks again for taking the time to help me be a better editor. GabeMc (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling me biased. It's not civil, and it doesn't assume good faith. Those policies/guidelines are fundamenal behavioral codes on must be followed by all editors, and if you ignore them you will be blocked.

What's almost unbelievable is that you are not even reacting to an edit I've made, but rather to me expressing my opinion on talk pages. Sorry, but that's how it works: I am free to express my opinion there as part of the consensus process. If you disagree, try to create a strong argument that you believe is true and will sway the opinion of other editors.

By the way, I've made about 32,000 edits to Wikipedia, with very, very few reverts that were not done by vandals. That means that hundreds of other editors have reviewed my edits and felt they were encyclopedic. You, in contrast, have made a relatively few edits and many of them have been reverted. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And based on your attack, you've seen the last of any help from me. Figure it out yourself. — John Cardinal (talk)

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. Respect copyright laws. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed.

Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,210,538 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. GabeMc (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc, I take it you've put those statements above for your own reference. It's good to see that you're starting to look at WP guidelines and policies as they are important to the way the encyclopedia works and editors interact. I was very surprised to see your incivility to John Cardinal on those article talk pages, after he had gone out of his way to help you several times in those discussion just above, and you had seemed grateful. PL290 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was, and am grateful for any help John or anyone has given me on WP. I wasn't trying to be uncivil to anyone, honestly, I thought that's what talk pages were for, stating opinions, and having discussions. John has questioned my objectivity several times, is he immune from the same? GabeMc (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, where does "Are you looking for a fight" fit into the pillars, how about threateneing to ban someone for stating their opinion on talk pages? GabeMc (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it was obvious, but since you ask: your comments on article talk pages, in response to John Cardinal's persistent attempts to help you out when you lost your footing, suggested that, amazingly, you were looking for a fight with him. By asking you that question, he was asking you why you were doing that. Secondly, since you mention "threatening to ban someone", I should point out that I don't believe John Cardinal has threatened to ban you or suggested he is in a position to do so. Finally, and perhaps most importantly: as to stating your opinion on talk pages, the purpose of an article talk page is to improve that specific article, based on reliable sources, not to prove Lennon is greater than McCartney, or speculate that McCartney behaved badly when interviewed about Lennon's murder. Please try to bear this in mind in future comments on article talk pages. Also feel free to harrass me, as John suggested, if you feel I can shed light on anything or help in any way—but not on article talk pages. PL290 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does one go about "owning" a WP page, the way some editors seem to? GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good lesson on WP pillars:

John Cardinal said:

That's 7 insults in one entry. GabeMc (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, I admit, I am not a born editor, I am a musician, and I do not know all the codes yet, but I am new to this site, and I will learn. I wasn't trying to insult, or to be uncivil, I was merely pointing out, as you have done to me, that your stance "seems" to lean toward Paul, I am sure I am wrong, and I won't question your objectivity again, as long as you do the same for me. GabeMc (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, where does threatening a "fight" and a "ban" fit into a good example for editors to follow? GabeMc (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "fight", I assume you meant "edit war", and you are not threatening me with physical violence, which is a crime by the way. GabeMc (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I insulted you on the PM talk page. I was angry at being called biased, angry that you made a big deal out of a talk page comment where I congratulated another editor, angry that I wasted time trying to help you be a better editor, and frustrated because you keep pushing McCartney vs. Lennon and that's totally god damn pointless. With regards to me calling you biased, I don't think I used that word. My comments were in reaction to multiple comments from you where you compared the Lennon page to the McCartney page, and more importantly, my comments were a reaction to specific comments from you advocating changes to one page based on the contents of the other.

Please keep any subsequent discussion of this here or on my talk page. It's not fair to other editors for you and I to clutter up the talk page of the two articles in question. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating changes to one page based on the contents of the other per se, but if Paul gets 32 hits, counting co-writers, then why wouldn't John's hits get counted the same way. It seemed a double standard was a foot. GabeMc (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say you weren't doing it, but then you do it again! The two pages are not related. We don't edit one based on the contents of the other. There is no double standard, and there isn't even a single standard. Each article is evaluated on its own terms based on WP standards, guidelines, and the consensus of the participating editors. No one set out to make McCartney's page different--or the same!--as Lennon's page, or vice-versa. Someone editing McCartney's page found a source that described an achievement of his, and they added it to the page. End of story. Later, you noticed that content and tried to get it removed or changed (I forget which), and when other editors defended the content, you ran over to Lennon's page and added a similar entry for him. The content of that edit was OK, but you didn't enter a valid source for it. I removed the invalid source and marked the content with a "citation needed" tag. I assume you (or someone else) will find such a source add add it; if I thought the content was wrong or unsourceable I would have reverted the whole edit. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, "There is no double standard, and there isn't even a single standard.", then why do you keep reverting my sources and/or edits. GabeMc (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Cardinal said:

I won't call you biased again, I sincerely apologize. I wasn't trying to "make a big deal" out of the talk page, I thought we were discussing the subject in an open, safe environment. I thought everyone agreed that Paul was flippant that day, even Paul (Harry (2002) p505), and it seemed like you were suggesting that he wasn't, I am sure I misread you. You didn't waste your time "trying to help you be a better editor", you gave good advice, and it is still good advice. I won't push Lennon vs McCartney, I promise to be objective. GabeMc (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of this edit of yours? You seem like you are reading and re-reading my talk page comments in order to nit-pick them. First, there's no need to add big, elaborate quotes like that. If you feel compelled to quote someone, just copy the text and put it between quotes "like this". Second, I DIDN'T CHANGE THE ARTICLE. I merely agreed with the edit that was made. If you disagree with the edit, make a case for changing it. Harass PL290 if you want, but please stop harassing me. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, look at Paul's article objectively, and check the source for his 32 us hits, it's a 23 minute BBC interview with Mishal Husain, while Paul was in Denver, Colorado in 2005 for a show, with no confirmation WHATSOEVER of 32 US hits.

Also, you say his 32 hits were cited below and you took the time to revert my edit, but you didn't bother to check. Not if the fact in question is the same as below, which it isn't, below it says 29 US #1s, or if the source is valid, which it isn't, it has the invalid source mentioned above.

Here is the citation that you used to revert my edits, tell me I was wrong, the same citation for Paul's 32 US #1s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4414102.stm

All I added was "citation needed".

BTW, I saw Paul at that show in Denver, he rocked hard! Amazing to do Helter Skelter in your encore, and nail it! GabeMc (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your talk page. Please do not copy talk page entries by another editor to your page from another page in such a way that it looks like they added them to your page directly. If you want to refer to another editors comments, you may copy a "diff link" from the history page of the page where the editor made the comment. You may also quote a portion of the editors words, but you should have some specific reason for doing that, such as replying to a question by another editor. If you do so, do not copy the signature and timestamp.

You asked for a truce. I haven't answered because I've been busy off-wiki. What is up with copying my comments here, there, and everywhere? — John Cardinal (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A truce still sounds good to me. GabeMc (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied on my page, but since you responded here, I'll repeat: A truce is fine with me. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

email me. i'd email you, but you don't have the option... Hotcop2 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, where do I find your addy? GabeMc (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

go to my user page, on the left under "toolbox" it says email user.... Hotcop2 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its prolly me, but I dont see any e-mail option under toolbox. GabeMc (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you've tried the toolbox on Hotcop's user page? You should see it there. PL290 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be blind, cant see it, can you PL290? GabeMc (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! It looks like this to me (see 5th item below Toolbox):

Toolbox
   * What links here
   * Related changes
   * User contributions
   * Logs
   * E-mail this user
   * Upload file
   * Special pages
   * Permanent link
   * Page size

PL290 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, It is not there for me, maybe I need to enable e-mail in order to see it? I see 7 items, not the 9 you see. GabeMc (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What links Here
• Related changes
• User contributions
• Logs
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link

These are the only links I see. GabeMc (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point, you would probably need to enable your own email if you wanted to use the feature. That sounds very likely, because whatever email address you put in your preferences, it sends that as the "from" address in the email received by the other user. So it's probably disabled from the toolbox until users choose to enter an email address themselves. PL290 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to do this, I would appreciate any help. GabeMc (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added my e-mail addy, but I still do not see his. GabeMc (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got it now, just needed to confirm. GabeMc (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe, click on this, and check the history on the edit you did here for 14 March, as this edit caused a cite error (references) shown near the bottom of the page. I left it alone, as you might correct this. Otherwise, keep up the good work! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to fix this, if you know how, I would love to know. GabeMc (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PL290 fixed a bad ref=, problem solved. GabeMc (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of changes to your edits. First, you reinserted that Waters was "best known" as Pink Floyd's bass player, ect. This is original research, and can't be used here. I have (again) removed "best". Secondly there seems to be an issue with Waters being the "primary songwriter". This too, is original research. Waters wrote roughly half of Pink Floyd's songs himself, and co-wrote all but one (Speak To Me). I have included this information in the article, without calling him the "primary" writer, which is dubious. With the information, the reader can make up his or her own mind. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your own original reasearch is inaccurate, there are 23 tracks though The Final Cut which Waters is not a writer, not one as you claimed and inserted into his page. Also, "principal songwriter" has been agreed upon for over 8 months, and it was discussed properly on the discussion page. Please seek consensus before changing agreed upon language, that is how Wiki is supposed to work.--GabeMc (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had my head up my ass for the "all but one song" part; I was thinking of something else. You are entirely correct on that one. However, as far as "principal songwriter" goes, I checked the talk page archives, and it looks like there was quite a bit of disagreement. I don't see where it was "agreed upon language". Rather than declaring him the principal songwriter, it's much better to just state the facts (not the version that I fucked up, of course) about who wrote what, and let the reader decide.Mk5384 (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Merriam-Webster: -"Principal": most important, consequential, or influential. Are you arguing Waters was not the most important, consequential, or influential songwriter in Pink Floyd circa(1968-1984)? --GabeMc (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it is this, of 120 PF tracks during Waters tenure with the band, he is a writer or co-writer on 97 tracks, or about 80% of all PF tracks from 1967-1983 were written or co-written by Waters. He has sole writing credit on 59 of 120. --GabeMc (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However, as far as "principal songwriter" goes, I checked the talk page archives, and it looks like there was quite a bit of disagreement." Mk5384 (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is always some disagreement before there is consensus. This language has not been debated or challenged in over 6 months. --GabeMc (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Most important, consequential, or influential" is a matter of opinion. I certainly agree that Waters was the most important, ect. It is still my opinion. Opinions, and even things that we ourselves know to be true do not merit inclusion. It is still original research. To declare Waters the "principal songwriter", we need a source that describes him as such.Mk5384 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the Malcolm X and Alex Haley articles. It's always frustrating going up against an editor who feels they own a series of articles. When said editor is an admin, it can become doubly frustrating.Mk5384 (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright means nothing. If you look at the copyright, it says:

© 1964 by Alex Haley and Malcolm X

© 1965 by Alex Haley and Betty Shabazz

Does that mean Betty Shabazz co-wrote the book as well?

PS - The cover of the first edition of the book is solid black, with the title, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, on the spine. I'm not sure what edition that Amazon photo is, but it's not the first edition. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]