Talk:Series of tubes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on January 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Series of tubes was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-02-07

Contents 1 A big truck. 2 Images 3 Flawed Explanation 4 Wiki-worthiness 5 Why is it so funny? 6 Quote by Llewellyn H. Rockwell 7 Ask for review of my addition 8 Phrase, Metaphor or Analogy? 9 Audio Files 10 Internet Was Sent by my staff 11 internet fad 12 Relevance? 13 He has no idea. 14 Daily Show quotes 15 Spelling 16 Appearance on the Daily Show 17 Requested move 17.1 Survey 17.1.1 Survey - Support votes 17.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 17.2 Discussion 18 Another Daily Show Reference 19 Failed GA

[edit] A big truck.

You know, I'm actually thankful to Senator Stevens for igniting this whole controversy.... Because honestly, I always thought that the internet was a big truck. But now I know.

XD

[edit] Images

Anyone have any good illustrations of the Internet that are safe to post? I was thinking of, say, a comprehensive screensaver shot or some old bank's pneumatic network...

I found an image that might be appropiate at http://www.chandigarhtrafficpolice.org/prohibitirysigns.php but I don't know if uploading it is legal so I just left it. I tried finding something already uploaded that would work, but the closest I could find was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bullock_cart_sign_india.JPG

You can oyu the pic from www.chandigarhtrafficpolice.org by linking back to us.

you could try Image:WorldWideWebAroundWikipedia.png. Bawolff 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a series of tubes to me.

a picture of a router, or preferably a server, would be better. something that actually handles internet traffic. That's an illustration of links, it has nothing to do with the actual network.

[edit] Flawed Explanation

I would like to see someone add a bit explaining why his example of email taking 4 days to arrive was not caused by the tubes being full..

When is the last time you clicked on a link to visit a website, and you had to wait four days for the webpage to appear? That's a bit of a colloquial explanation, but no matter how badly the "tubes" are "filled", it doesn't take anywhere near that long unless one of the links is down (the tubes are broken, not filled), or there's a PEBKAC issue.

On the other hand, if you're sending a whole internet... there's a rumor that internets can be really big sometimes... --Interiot 09:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the topology of the network driving the Senate's email system, but I would think that if both Senator Stevens and the unnamed member of his staff have addresses @*.senate.gov (I can only assume as much), then it would be entirely possible that the email never even reached the Internet in the first place. Even if they use some third party email service residing on an external :tually did send the e-mail when they were supposed to, but the holdup was the internet's fault. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are we looking for explanations for what was essentially an attempt by someone who thinks the internet works like snail mail to illustrate his idea? The statement obviously does not have roots in fact and is merely an ill-informed attempt by Stevens to add shock value to his otherwise baseless argument. 192.5.41.254 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is really "looking for explanations" here. On my part, anyway, it's merely idle speculation. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this calls for a random tech support anecdote - My old driving instructor tapped me up for some tech support during a lesson the other day, asking why he only seemed to get emails about once a month and then he got loads of them at once. After going through various possible (technically complex) reasons for this, I asked him what email client he was using... Outlook... so does that dial up automatically? Er, you have to dial up to the net to get your email?

I'd put money on the answer to Ted Steven's problem being one of similarly breathtaking technical naïveté, and I would imagine it'd be extremely difficult to diagnose without direct access to him.--82.152.205.122 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-worthiness

Because I know someone somewhere will try and get this entry deleted soon, I'll pre-emptively start the discussion now. I think this definitely needs its own article. It's gone far beyond Ted Stevens himself and spread to total meme status. It's also a major event in how the Internet is perceived by those in charge as well as how those in charge are perceived on the Internet, and there are tons of verifiable sources for the article out there with more appearing every day thanks to the debates Stevens started.

The current article is way too short and smacks of Ted Stevens-bashing, which may be fun, but isn't encyclopedic by any stretch. It's been less than a month, it's hard to say that this will stick around. It may be worthwhile at some future point, but for now, it's too short to warrant its own article. — Xenoveritas 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think given that it may very well, at some point in the not-too-distant future, be viewed as a significant moment in the debate over public policy and the Internet, if not in the greater debate about the competence of government generally, it would be premature to delete it right now. It seems that the safer course would be to let the article remain, and see if anything becomes of it -- if it really becomes a 'watershed moment,' then keep it; if in retrospect it was just a transient social meme, then roll the information into the main Stevens article. But either way, it is by your own admission too early to tell, so therefore I would argue in the strongest possible terms that the article should not be deleted. Not yet, anyway. --Kadin2048 06:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a bit of work, of course, but it's off to a good beginning so far. Thanks to The lorax and Jersyko for getting things started. Rob T Firefly 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the writeup of the meme in today's New York Times (link), combined with the Daily Show report and other publicity, easily defeat any notability or WP:MEME arguments that there should not be an article. Also, good work so far, The lorax. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but don't you think there needs to be more to this article than a transcript of the speech in question and then "Hey, look! People are actually talking about this!" Thunderbunny

The fact that this guy has no idea what is going on, and has any influence what so ever over the state of the internet, makes this wiki-worthy. This is a perfect example of our government in action today, change and lack of it, driven by the lobbying power of telcos.

-Burny

Everytime some ignorant politician (i.e. Bush) makes a funny comment which a few people latch on to will it become a wikipedia article? In 50 years, will wikipedia be full of "Series of tubes" type idiosyncratic articles? I've proposed a deletion; if a consensus is made to do otherwise I will respect it.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it so funny?

Can somebody please explain why this analogy has received so much ridicule? He's obviously recalling the era of mail tubes, when you'd wrap up an envelope and dump it into a mail tube. The system of mail tubes really wasn't that different from the Internet's system of wires and routers. Yes, it's slightly oversimplified, but why is it so funny? Do people expect this guy to write a textbook on TCP/IP or something?69.226.232.53 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"slightly oversimplified"? He regulates the thing. He should at least have the same understanding of the internet as my 12 year old cousin, who doesn't even like computers. --mboverload@ 22:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

heh heh, so what's your 12 year old cousin's description of internet? Anarchopedia 03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Government suits making laws about stuff they don't understand is nothing new. Anyway, in this case, the fact that he can analogize the Internet to a tube mail system suggests that he has at least enough understanding to get the idea of a "network", i.e. that the Internet isn't just some magical place, but actually a series of traffic-routing points linked by throughways. In any case, the point is that this is supposed to be about the article, and the article doesn't presently clarify just why this is supposed to be so hilarious. If it really is that funny, the article should explain why.69.226.232.53 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ted? That you? · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, wikipedia isn't a place to editorialise. Maybe you think he does know what he is talking about, but that has no bearing on the article - it should just report the fact that people are mocking this man because they perceive he is making laws about something he knows nothing about Damburger 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a video that CNET has featured as one of "Ten tech-related YouTube clips you shouldn't miss" http://news.com.com/2300-1026_3-6095928-2.html?tag=ne.gall.pg Maybe it should be added?

This isn't a joke page. This isn't about whats funny or not funny. This has become a quickly spreading symbol of how our government has built a ladder to heaven and consequently can't see the ground it stands on, then of course forgets know how to climb back down. Government stupidity is nothing new, but blatent, easily ridiculed public idiocy isn't all too common.

And how can you defend the use of "an internet" ?? A series of tubes would be a good analogy if he had the required knowlege to embelish beyond a poorly chosen regurgitation of buzzwords. Fresheneesz 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody give an example of what would be considered a good analogy to be used to describe the Internet?

"A wide area network of servers and microcomputers". —ptk✰fgs 18:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And how to do connect a wide are network? Tubes! Pipes! Optical fibers, coax, microwave, and twisted pairs. I still don't see what's so funny about the tubes. Maybe he should have talked about IP_over_Avian_Carriers

Analogy: "The comparison of two things, which are alike in several respects, for the purpose of explaining or clarifying some unfamiliar or difficult idea or object by showing how the idea or object is similar to some familiar one." What you said would have no meaning to somebody not already familiar with networking. --Son0rouS 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then again, a "series of tubes" doesn't have any useful meaning to anyone. So.. which is better? Fresheneesz 03:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote by Llewellyn H. Rockwell

Yes, it is relevant. If you look at the source of the quote you will see that it is from an article about Stevens's speach. Rockwell is arguing that Stevens is an example of the state and its incompetence to regulate and centrally plan an economy. --Kalmia 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote:

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. of the Ludwig von Mises Institute argued "We ought not to regret that someone with talent stays in the productive private sector and out of the Senate. What we ought to regret is that the dregs who are on top presume to have power over us. Government is always and everywhere all thumbs. That's one reason its responsibilities ought to be as few as possible." [1]

The article is about Stevens' incompetence and how it supports a libertarian view of government (quite a stretch in my view, but that's neither here nor there). However, the argument Rockwell is making is only slightly relevant to the internet meme known as "series of tubes," which is the subject of this article. It certainly does not warrant a mention in the text of the article itself. Note that the article is already linked in the "external links" section, which is where it belongs. Finally, please note that "see also" sections in articles are reserved for wikilinks that are not already contained in the article text. Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 12:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

He's incompetent, so you think he and politicans like him should regulate the internet via net neutrality? Anarchopedia 03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ask for review of my addition

I added "A nontechnical person could assume that a synonym of pipe would be appropriate terminology." Feel free to revert if you find it inappropriate. I just think that it adds an important point, even if I still think he's a dummy =D --mboverload@ 23:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"A series of pipes" sounds like drug paraphernalia ... or some kind of Scottish folk music. —ptk✰fgs 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd it sound more like the human digestion system --in fact there's a commercial on these days for some kind of drug that helps relieve digestive problems featuring humanoid figures made out of pipes --or should I say, made out of a series of tubes? --Bobak 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Chindia. —ptk✰fgs 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phrase, Metaphor or Analogy?

"Series of tubes was a phrase used by United States Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, to describe the Internet in a June 28..." Well it stated as phrase, then was changed to analogy, then was changed to metaphor, and now it's back to phrase again. So what is it? --Son0rouS 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely a phrase, as it's composed of a series of words. I think we can give Stevens enough credit to call it a metaphor, as I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to imply that it is actually tubes. I think "metaphor" is the most appropriate word for the lead. The comparison of the internet to tubes is an analogy; "It's a series of tubes" itself is a metaphor. This is essentially the same construction used in the example in metaphor: "All the world's a stage". —ptk✰fgs 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Either "phrase" or "metaphor" works for me, I suppose, as neither requires us to give him too much credit. "Analogy" is a bit much. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

usage of "metaphor" seconded 71.103.90.64 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Metaphor" thirded. --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken this into serious consideration and concluded the following: If you are referring to "It's a series of tubes." then the following are true: It is not an analogy, which requires "like" or "as" to qualify. It is a phrase as it's lacks a predicate. "Is" does not quality as a predicate. It is a metaphor for very obvious reasons. It is a copula but metaphors are intrinsically copulas. The best suited description for it is metaphor. Calling it a phrase would not be relevant. However, if you are referring to "series of tubes" it lacks reference and then the following are true: It is a noun. It is a non-sequiter. There is no comparison at all so it is not an analogy, copula or a metaphor. It is a phrase. GravisZro talk · 18:11, 6 January 2007 (EST)

[edit] Audio Files

I've uploaded two audio samples - the 'Series of Tubes' one and the 'I Got it Yesterday' one, but I can't get them to look neat. A little help? VJ Emsi 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, what was the point of deleting them? The speech was a public one in the US Senate, the clip is everywhere and no-one's ever made any money from it or copyrighted it. Why? WHY? VJ Emsi 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Were they deleted? I just moved them to a separate section, Media, near the bottom of the article. I wanted to put them inline using the audio template, but it conflicted with the cquote template currently in use. So I used a listen template and put it in a separate section. If anyone has a better solution, please go for it. Schi 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my man, stupid mistake on my part. Thankyou very much. VJ Emsi 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a recording of a Senate speech, so any claim to copyright would be dubious at best. (This is not automatically true of all government documents in any jurisdiction, but true of US federal gov't docs.) Additionally, it was first published on the Public Knowledge website, which is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license. I think the link to the audio file is ample attribution, though I cannot speak for PK. DJ Talk 6:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Was Sent by my staff

I think it should be noted in the article that there is no way that the whole "Internet was sent by my staff I got it yesterday" phrase. This is less know than series of tubes, but makes much less sense and is more likely the source of "people doubting Stevens' knowldge of the 'net"

Yeah. Tubes is a flawed analogy, and is incorrect for the point he's trying to make, but it's the closest he gets to making sense in that speech "Ten movies streaming across that, that internet, and what happens to your own personal internet? I just the other day got...an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday." THAT is the section of gold ripe for parody. --Nintendorulez talk 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree "a series of tubes" is WAY closer to reality than "that internet", "personal internet", and IMHO the worst of them all "an internet was sent to me"

Ditto. I don't understand why the "series of tubes" remark, which was obviously just a rubbish analogy, has become so (in)famous when a couple of sentences earlier he claimed someone had tried to send him "an internet".--82.152.205.122 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] internet fad

We do not need links to the knock-off T shirts and other viral marketing, thanks. Guy 10:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

the t-shirt links have been here since the beginning of the article, which would kind of go against your statement that it is "knock off stuff". it's part of what makes it a fun thing. but fads seem to be a big deal with you guys. either have the section on the internet stuff, or just take it out. none of it is more worthy than the other stuff by the criteria you're using. it's all part of the joke in my opinion and i would vote to keep all of it but wikipedia isn't run by my opinion. i think internet fads are fun :) Samantha17 07:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the link to the song and the link to the t-shirts, for instance, is that one is non-commercial while the other is commercial. Guy's point, I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that Wikipedia should not engage in marketing t-shirts. This logic does not necessarily apply, however, to a myspace page or music remixes. I disagree with your "all or nothing" approach to the links. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If it'd help, I have a photo of a t-shirt sighted at a hacker convention here. It's a non-commercial photo, and I have no links to where you can buy the shirt. I don't even know who made it. The photo is my property and already distributed under the same Creative Commons License as the rest of my site, and anyone who wants to link to it or upload it has my full permission to do so. Rob T Firefly 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance?

I recently proposed the article to be deleted, and someone took it down immidiately, claiming that since "Technically, all of our internet memes can be considered unimportant" implying that calling any internet meme "unimportant" has no relevant value in wikipedia. So there are no unimportant internet memes then?

Months from the said "Pipes" comment, is this an important and enduring internet meme that deserves being on wikipedia?--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I contest the prod (though it's already been removed). The article is verifiable and the subject has been discussed in multiple media sources. Weeks after the incident, the Daily Show is still talking about it. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the prod (Me!) Anyways, my rebuttal: We've got a whole lot of things that can also be considered "unimportant". For example, we've got every episode of The Simpsons. Is an episode of The Simpsons less important than say, the Quadratic equation? Of course it is. Put it on WP:AFD and see what everyone else thinks. bCube.talk(contribs); 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: this particular Wikipedia article has been featured in the media. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-17/In the news. · j e r s y k o talk ·

I concur with the three previous commenters. Even today, it's hard to find someone who doesn't know what you're referring to when you mention X being a series of tubes or Y not being a big truck. --SpecOp Macavity 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I concede my point LOL. I guess the possibility of wikipedia ending up as a dumping ground for thousands of internet "memes" in the future is looking ever more likely. Of course, thats not really wikipedia's fault, its everyones fault for making them important. Anyway, the consensus is clear and thats all I wanted.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Weeks after the incident, the Daily Show is still talking about it. Um, okay? I fail to see how a joke news show can be regarded as the litmus test for article relevance in an encyclopedia. If I recall correctly, the Daily Show's colleague Steven Colbert recently had his viewers log in and post all kinds of meaningless crap here. So back to the reason I (most recently) proposed deletion: why does this merit anything more than a paragraph or two in the Stevens article? Dubc0724 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As the article indicates, the incident was reported in the New York Times and Reuters, as well as Wired's blog, and other notable blogs: DailyKos, BoingBoing, and Slashdot. The fact that the Daily Show has referred to the incident on multiple occasions seems to put it in line with any number of other memes associated with TV shows (see Simpsons, South Park), and in any case, certainly does not weaken the case for including "Series of tubes". The association to Stephen Colbert's Wikipedia pranks is disingenuous and irrelevant. Schi 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree that discussion of "series of tubes" on the Daily Show goes to the notability of series of tubes? Months after Stevens' statement, there are still over 50 Google News hits for the phrase, and nearly 450,000 google hits. I'm generally not one for using google tests or even discussing "notability" at all, but I think it's difficult to argue that series of tubes is non-notable, if that's what you're saying. Series of tubes has been discussed by numerous media sources (some of which are discussed in the article), including the New York Times. In my book, it doesn't get much more verifiable in reliable sources than that. Finally, regarding "a paragraph or two in the Stevens article", well, we'd have to cut a large portion of the text of this article to squeeze it into a paragraph, and discussing it fully in that article would create undue weight problems. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure it could! Two paragraphs would be more than plenty. It's overdone as it is. Thanks, Dubc0724 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He has no idea.

Why would you refer to the internet as a series of tubes?! That's a terrible metaphor! One shouldn't even need to use a metaphor to dumb down an even simpler idea, which is millions of servers and computers connected together. These servers and computers are private property, stored in offices, homes, and companies! Not only would this idiot believe you can just call these servers and computers "tubes" that belong to the government, but he would intend to internationally censor the internet! It's not ours. It's the WORLD wide web.

You'd refer to the internet as a series of tubes to if you wanted to illustrate the way in which packets move through the internet and the way they sit in queues in the memory of routers. Right now that's often first-in-first-out, with maybe hundrends of packets lined up ready to be sent out of a port. A single FIFO queues in routers are just like tubes. It's a great metaphor, except in the case when people are more interested in ridicule than understanding.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.148.191 (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

This is OT but actually I personally don't get why people are concentrating on the 'tubes' part. Yes it's a bit dumb but there are much bigger problems with his apparent understanding. His apparent lack of understanding of e-mail is one thing which we already mention but more importantly he doesn't even appear to understand what the issue is about. No one is 'dumping' info on to the internet and no one is forcing large amounts of info. The issue is that ISPs are charging their customers to provide access but then want to charge other people who are not their customers to enable to connect these other people to their customers at higher priority. No one is forcing or dumping anything. The ISPs customers are requesting access from other people which they are paying their ISP for. But the ISPs also want to be able to charge other people so they connect them to their customers at higher priority. This has nothing to do with large amounts of data being "dumped" or even streaming movies really. Nil Einne 11:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason "a series of tubes" is used is because that is the phrase that took off. Although it is the least of the mistakes he made during his speech, it is the part that has become notable. -- kenb215 talk 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Show quotes

The actual jokes made on the Daily Show have no relevance whatsoever to this article. The Daily Show's take on things is not crucial, or even particularly helpful to understanding the topic. Having them in the article gives them that status. --88.111.41.106 01:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree that the appearance of series of tubes on The Daily Show goes to the notability of series of tubes? If not, then why do you think it is necessary to remove any context regarding The Daily Show's discussion of it from this article (and, might I add, any references contained therein). I object to the unilateral removal of a large portion of text from this article without first discussing it here. I am reverting the removal of text until consensus on this issue can be reached (if anything posts on this talk page in the past support inclusion of the text, but others should comment on it). · j e r s y k o talk · 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I've reverted the edit by 82.3.252.119, which changed the spelling of defense to defence. The former is correct US English spelling, while the latter is UK. Given the subject of the article is an American politician, and most of the notability comes from US media, the US spelling is more appropriate. --Kesh 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance on the Daily Show

Did Stevens ever actually end up appearing on the Daily Show? If he didn't, then we should probably remove the statement about him "going to make a rebuttal", because its been six months. If he has, that should be mentioned. Sloverlord 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he never did. I think it might be worth keeping, as he did state he was going to appear on the show to make a rebuttal, but point out that he has not done so to date. -- Kesh 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Another Daily Show Reference

Last nights episode of The Daily Show(Janurary,23,2007) referenced "...the interwebs, a series of tubes..." when talking about the presidential candidates using the Internet as a campaign tool —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.176.35.47 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Failed GA

While this article has some promise, there are some major improvements that need to be made before it qualifies for GA status:

• At the moment the lead doesn't adequately summarize the content of the article. It shouldn't just give the background to the speech, but offer a short summation of the article as a whole.
• The first section of the article proper should offer the background about Stevens' speech.
• The "Daily Show" section is very listy: one-sentence paragraphs are bad prose style. This section needs to be written in a more connected way.
• The "Gears of War" section is unintelligble to anyone who doesn't know the game. What is this achievement, and what does it have in common with the subject of the article besides the name?
• This isn't strictly speaking required, but I'd like to see the blog entries in the citations referenced a little better, with their titles listed rather than just "Slashdot's take" and so on. You might want to look at WP:CITET for an idea of how to cite web sources.

Please feel free to resubmit when these issues have been fixed. MLilburne 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)