User talk:Sunray/Archive06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] virago

please consider this[1] Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI: some history [2]. -Will Beback 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
That was deleted by another admin, on account of the fact that the material was deleted in an AfD. So it isn't welcome in any location. Sorry, -Will Beback 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're researchig the vandal I could restore the page, then copy it into a user sandbox page briefly while you obtain the info you wanted. -Will Beback 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll post it at User:Sunray/temp so that you can copy it to your hard disk, then I'll delete that page. Not that the material can also be found in the history of the Virago article in German Wikipedia.
I've cleared it out again, but you can find it in the history. Cheers, -Will Beback 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If you could give me more detail what you're looking for I may be able to help. -Will Beback 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added several old versions to the history. Let me know if we should keep searching. -Will Beback 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD for the now-infamous virago section of the Asian fetish article is now up on the article's talk page. Please vote if you have the time. --Wzhao553 05:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian fetish

I agree with you - but I do not even know where to begin on this one. Half violates NOR, the other half is well-documented, but just silly .... Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to pass interpretation of the voting on to you as per your request, but I would still prefer that you involve an administrator in some way as you see fit. Thanks for your input. --Wzhao553 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure; I'm glad that I was able to help. I'd be more worried about the vandals if they were a ittle more intelligent; as it is, they're pretty easy to control. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:SSC-Courtroom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SSC-Courtroom.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. Sunray 09:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict

I rv'd your last change by mistake, I will restore it, but I want to add back the persondata box which was lost, unless that's a problem Guettarda 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ecovillages

  • When you find information in the wrong place, it helps if you move it yourself before just deleting it. Thanks. --Dystopos 21:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope, guess that covers it. All I saw was the deletion and that some of them weren't in the list. Sorry to have bothered you. --Dystopos 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! —akghetto talk 07:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great job in moving large sections of Religion!

The Original Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your bold work cleaning up Religion, a particularly messy article. BWD (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chautauqua

Why did you move the disabiguation page? Without another article the word 'disambiguation' is not needed in the namespace page title. Are you planning a different workup on that name? Thanks Doc 21:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense, just wanted to be sure that another article was being created. The redirect alone did not make sense as I found it. Thanks. Doc 13:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Position

I noticed you changed the position of the picture I put up on the article for the Downtown Eastside. I thought it was more appropriate in the Significant Locations section because the hotel is, in fact, a significant location. Any reason for the move? Thanks Jandrinov 07:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sold. It's good where it is. Jandrinov 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 core topics

 You showed support for Sex at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help.

[edit] Electrical Engineering

Thanks for your comments about my electrical engineering edits. Yeah, I'm never quite sure with an edit like that whether it's minor or not. According to Help:Minor edit, it can be "rearranging of text without changing any content". I kinda thought mine would fall under that. Any pointers to the community consensus on that? Benhoyt 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article length, bloat

Hi, I agree with you that articles should generally be no more than 32K. Not sure how much bloat is happening. Maybe these problems are partly related to WP's semi-maturation (people adding stuff for its own sake, regardless of the value) and a technical change, maybe about a year ago, that made page size not a technical problem.

The subject hasn't come up for discussion at the 1.0 group. I think so far, the core articles tend to be more short than long. Maurreen 03:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of being concise. Maurreen 03:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Inadequate" pages

Hi, Sunray. I had an idea and would like to hear what you think.

I'm considering a template to mark articles and possibly lists as "inadequate." This could be placed on the article page.

Other templates indicating problems with the article could be moved to the talk page. So, especially for articles that have multiple problems, the "Inadequate" tag would at least improve their appearance (by having fewer templates on the article page).

Another advantage is that this could be set up like the stub tags, to help sort inadequate articles and bring attention to them via categories.

Maurreen 05:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maurreen 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP 1.0

I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"

Hi. I'm interested in feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 18:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Break

Sunray, thank you for your very kind note. I think, I hope, that I've had enough rest for now. I also got my taxes out of the way. :) Maurreen 16:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You are thoughtful. If we were in a room together, we could maybe have some fun talks. Maurreen 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

S2s ranger 23:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)SUNRAY: As a person whom lives in the sea-to-sky area, and a member of the Squamish Nation, I prefer the term INDIAN, (i.e. Indian Affairs.) So now you have heard it from and Indian!

[edit] Date proposal

Hello Sunray,

I'm not sure if you're still following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I have made a proposal to completely rewrite the Dates section in the Manual of Style, with the hope that people from both sides of the debate can agree on a text. I noticed you contributed in the previous discussions on this topic, but I don't think you've commented on my proposal yet (unless I just missed it!). Please do come along and discuss it if you're interested. I would like as many people as possible to comment, so that we can truly say we've reached a consensus.

Thanks,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian fetish

Hi, Sunray. The Asian fetish article is at the center of another big edit war again, this time between Gnetwerker, who thinks that Asian fetish is defined as pornography involving Asian women, and me, who thinks that it is defined as men who are obsessed with Asian women. There's been a lot of controversy in the past, but this one is just plain ridiculous. In order to reach for NPOV, we really, desperately need some editors who are familiar with the various points of view on the subject as you are. Thanks in advance. Best, Wzhao553 13:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The comment above grossly misrepresents my position. -- Gnetwerker 23:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

Hello, Sunray. I hadn't noticed that that person was a vandal. I usually try to greet people as soon as they sign up for an account.

Next time, I'll pay closer attention to my welcomees. --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glooscap: Henry Sinclair

As I mentioned I cannot remember the name of the book I read that item in. If I am able to find it and cite it, would you object to me re-adding that paragraph? There's a relatively extensive article on Sinclair, as part of an extensive body of articles on pre-Columbian transatlantic contact, and I don't see how adding information to an encyclopedia hurts it. Besides, it's not like Glooscap was an actual person (unless you buy into the Sinclar stuff, which I personally don't) so it's not like adding another piece to a legend is somehow slanderous.--Caliga10 11:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're following what I am saying. A) I don't believe Henry Sinclair came to America, and B) I don't believe Glooscap has anything to do with Henry Sinclair. By the logic you are using to defend your decision to remove the Sinclair reference, we should delete all articles about folklore because there is no evidence for any of it. But various psuedohistorians have tried to link the two, and we do after all have articles about Erich von Daniken, Ivan van Sertima, and their theories. Shall I go ahead and list Glooscap as an AfD? :)--Caliga10 14:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"If I haven't understood properly, please explain what I have missed. All I said was that we need sources for anything that is not common knowledge."
Yep, that's fine. I think the book I read this in was called "The Labyrinth of the Grail" and it was clearly a work of pseudohistory, but it's a source in print nonetheless.--Caliga10 01:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salishan languages

Hi; saw you pulled the stub I just put in; and a good thing as I've been self-automating this morning just plugging in the Indigenous Project stub markers on all the languages/peoples I've been reviewing for the project page; I forget that a "stub" marker is for stubs only, rather than a classifier for all documents relating to the project. Also been spacing on the yes/no toggle on whether an article has an infobox or not. Sigh. Too many things to think about at once....Skookum1 20:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

re your comment about not needing two stubs: do you mean ethno-stub vs NorthAm-native-stub? Or do you mean the stub that's on the article page vs. the one on the talk page?Skookum1 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irving Layton

While you're in there, could I ask you to take a look at the recently-added paragraph concerning Marc di Saverio? I've been going back-and-forth with an anon IP contributor over whether it belongs in the article, but I would appreciate some input from others. Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I wanted to take some time to cool off, and then things just slid. I appreciate your comments on my talk page.

My thinking about including the other community colleges is that many Vancouver residents commute to them (e.g., Kwantlen has a Richmond campus that is very convenient). Regardless, feel free to revert that section. Usgnus 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Did not think you thought it was confusing

After it says LeBron finished second, it says Nash also finished with the MOST FIRST PLACE VOTES, with 57, and kobe finishes 2nd with 22, FIRST Place votes is implied, because 22 and 280 or whatever are totally different numbers, the readers will know. It makes total sense. There is no way that is confusing. But I did not know you thought it was confusing. If you wrote in the edit summary that it was confusing i would not have written that. I thought you just were like a lot of these nash supporters and want to hide stuff. Sorry for that edit summary though. Hganesan 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

[edit] Canadian Forces

Article states "...it has also been suggested that ..."(these where Hellyer's motivations) - so it does not say he was actually motivated by these things, just that those accusations were made; not worded very clearly, I have reworded this; if you still want cites for what it says now, feel free to re-insert the 'fact' tag, & I will dig up the appropriate refs, but I think now it is clear that Hellyer is not presumed to have had those reasons.Bridesmill 21:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, it wasn't popular, but in many ways I believe he was made a bit of a scapegoat by the rest of gov't - in retrospect, what he did was uqite smart, sort of a case of the right thing done/marketed/implemented the wrong way. Things now are in many ways worse than when everyone was 'green'. Will have a look for refs though. Bridesmill 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wilderness

Hi, wilderness article is looking better. My world view has "limited geographic scope" regards, KAM 12:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Greeting again, if you don't like Urban wilderness in the first paragraph, take it out. I can fit it in later on in the article, perhaps a discussion on how the size of a wilderness area. I'm thinking the first paragraph is getting too long? regards KAM 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Urban Wilderness doesn't belong in the first paragraph for sure. My understanding is that wilderness has two meaning, first an area that is wild and second a lens through which we view nature. Social construct takes care of the second. For the first however I think saying "natural environment on Earth that has not been modified by human activity" is too narrow. It is the view of an ecologist. It doesn't include the wilderness of the Bible (away from civilization) or Thoreau (the same, and included cut over forests) or some area suitable for primitive recreation (re-creation) I think it should broader, perhaps closer to the Wilderness act of 1964 - undeveloped land retaining its primeval character and influnce. Later in the article, a area undisturbed by human activity that can be used as a baseline for reasearch or an area used for primitve recreation etc. FYI my POV is that secondary forest is underapprecated shouldn't have to be "virgin" to be valuable. KAM 22:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[cross-posted to User talk:KAM]
I did see this when you first posted it, but wasn't sure how to respond. Thanks for the reminder. I wasn't sure about the second meaning you mention, so I've been looking at various definitions. The Oxford English Dictionary lists four:
  1. Wild or uncultivated land. This meaning has three variants: a) (without the article); b) (with the article--as in the wilderness)... Wild or uncultivated land inhabited only by wild animals... "a tract of solitude and savageness," and c) a piece of ground in a large garden or park, planted with trees, and laid out in a fantastic style, often in the form of a maze or labyrinth. [The dictionary gives no examples of this meaning in modern usage].
  2. A waste or desolate region of any kind e.g., of open sea or air
  3. (figurative) Something figured as a region of a wild or desolate character or in which one wanders or loses one's way; in religious use applied to the present world or life as contrasted with heaven or the future life.
  4. A mangled, confused or vast assemblage or collection of persons or things.
The lead in the article currently gives two definitions:
  • a natural environment on Earth that has not been modified by human activity
  • areas within which natural processes operate without human interference
These cover various shades of meaning in 1 & 2, above, (and I think also encompass the meaning in the U.S. Wilderness Act. As you suggest, we could add the meanings given in # 3 to the article. How would we best do that? Would it make sense to add something on this to the "Conceptions of wilderness" section? New section? Sunray 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply, I wasn't sure about use of talk pages. I can see my remarks are not clear. Restated wilderness is two things an area or an idea. I plan on doing some more reading about western roots of the concept of wilderness but will not be doing any edits for the time being. I appreciate your help. KAM 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women's suffrage: Grand merging and reforms!

Hello there, A discussion is going on in Women's suffrage#Grand merging and reforms! and I though you might like to join. Thank you, __ Maysara 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help?

Can you comment here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#recent_changes I am concerned that User:CrazyInSane and User:Codex Sinaiticus will not give up easily - and will not allow for any compromise whatsoever. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mackenzie Valley Pipeline copyedit

Of the articles I'm capable of fixing, I fix them. You can check my history. For the ones I can't readily fix I try to encourage others who can fix them to show up and make improvements. Now without the copyedit flag it will sit there unimproved because you have this strange, misguided philosophy that if one can detect a defect one is necessarily immediately qualified to do something about it, where calling attention to your superiors is for some bizzare reason excluded. Go ahead and remove it, but don't fool yourself in thinking these designations serve no useful purpose. MaxEnt 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I get where this originated. My full paragraph comment in the talk page is not there. My Firefox crashed during the FF upgrade process and I must have not posted that text before the crash, so it makes more sense why you reacted to my copyedit insertion.
The question remains: Will governments and corporations prove equal to balancing these complex variables?
I described this sentence (and the one prior) as being a good conclusion for an undergraduate essay, rather than encyc. in tone. The problem here is that this is 99% flourish and 1% definable semantics. There's just no way to precisely draw what "prove equal" is supposed to mean. Exercise left to the prejudice of the reader. Nor can one define what "balanced variables" might entail. Variable is a poor word choice, it seems to rather mean "complex concerns" or "concerns involving complex variables". "prove equal" is an oddly passive turn of phrase in the post WTO protest era. Aside from that, what's not to like? Apologies for going Chucky on your user page earlier. MaxEnt 00:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been fairly active helping a friend edit pages involving ecological issues. I might accept "prove equal" for the Cdn gov. negotiating a first nations land treaty, or even "Will Garry Bettman prove equal to negotiating a workable CBA that grows the NHL revenue base." Surprise, surprise, he did. But in this example, no matter what course is taken, at the end of the day there are going to be large, vocal parties on both sides claiming either A) the economic cost exceeded the ecological cost, or B) the converse. It's an unprovable proposition, there is no definable quantity to equal. Does Bush mediate in Palestine/Israel to "balance" complex variables? There are no "balanced" solutions; only solutions they will live with, or not live with (mostly the later). If any of these phrases are capable of precise meaning, it's not being invoked here. An rendition attempting semanticity might look like this:
The question remains whether government and industry can come together on an ecologically respectful development approach/plan/program within [viable] economical constraints/parameters and provide jobs/prosperity to [a representative mix of] present day Canadians without bestowing an ecological catastrophe on future generations that greatly exceeds the present benefits accrued.
A little lacking is smoothness/sonority and not easily grafted within the existing tone. If you could condense/rework this template for tone, then we would have something. MaxEnt 01:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thrilled with your improvement. My normal writing voice is too sharp to come up with the soft euphemism visiting. Just a little bit mushy like the rubber joints between engine parts, but still entirely clear as to function and meaning. The perfect grommet. MaxEnt 00:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karloff and Lowry

Hi. Please see my comments on Talk:List of famous British Columbians about this.Skookum1 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W. Edwards Deming

I see you have been doing some serious work on the Deming article. You've made some great improvements to the article. I've started doing some copyediting and have made a couple of comments in edit summaries (e.g., condensing the lead; format for references). Note that there is a way of shortening long lists of references for the same book or article (which I've started to do for The New Economics for Industry). Once these sorts of tidying up activities are done, we should look at the length of the article. At 35 kb, it is already going beyond the recommended size for good articles. Because Deming is such an important (yet relatively little known) figure, the information about him in the article is all important. However, we could create separate articles for some of the subjects and write short summaries with links from the main article. I would be happy to work on this with you. Sunray 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunray, I am very interested in working with you on the article. I am new to Wikipedia and understand very little about mark up, the finer points of Wiki style, and visual formatting. I would like to see the article meet the GA criteria. Do you think we could create a plan to meet the FA criteria? I read about the mark up for the multiple notations but had not gotten back to studying how the mark up works. It is great to be able to observe and learn as you make these improvements. I concluded that the lead section needed to be shorter and more focused but wasn't sure where to put the material removed from the lead. I believe all the factual errors have been corrected with the exception of the 14 Points. Several of the points in the article have a few "non Deming" words added. I plan to revise the 14 Points with a list from a published source that draws from later revisions by Deming and quotes him exactly. If you see any statements that need citations, I should be able to provide them. I would like your opinion about adding an image. I am sure permission will be granted for use. http://www.deming.org.uk/images/deming_collage.jpg Thank you. Leaders100 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Great that you are ready to collaborate on the article. To me, collaboration is the essence of Wikipedia. Markup, style and editing are easy to learn. Some groundrules: 1) For markup: copy shamelessly. Look at Featured Articles, see what works and copy it. 2) Style: The Wikipedia MoS is pretty good, but doesn't cover everything. A good manual, such as The Chicago Manual of Style, is useful. 3) Editing: Readability is the key to good editing. Readability is improved by: shorter words, shorter sentences, well-organized content. A readability level checker is a great tool. I use one to edit with.
As to Featured Article status, have you seen these guidelines?
I'm no expert on images, but am learning. We would definitely need some good pics and other sorts of images to get FA status. If you contact the Deming people you should ask them to grant Commons attritribution or share alike license. The primer on Wikimedia Commons is pretty good (just click on "Creative Commons" in the "Well-known licences" section of the link). This should give you some ideas about how we can approach people to ask for permissions. We could develop a plan of action on the talk page. Sunray 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed the GA and FA guidelines. I have also been studying some GA/FA articles. I nominated a good article candidate to try to learn more about the details of the criteria. The article was rejected without specific suggestions on what needed to be improved, not helpful for what I was after The Toyota Way. I will work on the image permission. Would you like to initiate the plan of action outline on the talk page? Leaders100 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of Featured articles

Here are some Featured articles of contemporaries (or near contemporaries) of Dening's for comparison and inspiration:

[edit] W. Edwards Deming plan

Article length: There are four major periods in Deming's life, each one notable in its own right. Early career in physics and statistics, WWII contributions to industry/war production, contributions to Japan, post If Japan Can...Why Can't We? "discovery" and work in the US. One strategy to deal with the length of the article is to develop/elaborate each period in the main article body and create separate articles for System of Profound Knowledge, The 14 Points and deadly diseases, and concepts and quotations. Separate articles covering the Deming theories/philosophy will allow space to cover those topics in more depth. The breadth and complexity of some elements of the Deming philosophy make it challenging to adequately describe in a few words. Several of the "See also" linked articles have severe problems and factual errors which will be difficult to address (example: Statistical process control). Leaders100 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be useful to archive the current W. Edwards Deming talk page so we can focus on the current project? The issues/questions on the talk page have been addressed. I asked Ed Poor if he would like to work on the article but haven't received a response. Leaders100 23:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
My talk page has a chronology of key events for reference as we consider the structure/content of the main article. Leaders100 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the structure and length issues? Making a decision of these issues is the top priority in the improvement plan in my view because the structure impacts all the other points on the to do list. Leaders100 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricanes

Hi, Sunray! Always nice to hear from you. I'm no Caniac. But I'll raise a glass. Are you an Oilers fan? Maurreen 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't watch the games, but I heard very good things about the Oilers and their fans.
Much of this area is very taken with the Hurricanes, very celebratory especially last night. Some us care little, or care more about other sports, but it's exciting and very unifying overall. The front page of the newspaper today had the headline "It's ours" and hockey was the only story on the page. Maurreen 15:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/n/User_talk%7ESunray_Archive06_1ee0.html"