User talk:Confiteordeo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, ConfiteorDeo, and Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Thank you for Inland Northern American English, btw! JackLumber. 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RE: Continent

Hi there! I hope you're well. I don't think the notation regarding the Atlas of Canada is superfluous information -- far from it; if anything, it reinforces general statements made earlier in the article. Continents are, somewhat, a matter of interpretation with regional conventions and variations (e.g. Eurasia or Europe/Asia?). Take a glance at the continent article (which appears to be lacking in source matter and is in need of improvement anyway) and, frankly, any of the continental articles in Wikipedia and you may observe various perspectives about the topic. If we have an opportunity to cite a reputable, verifiable convention, which is actually required for all content in Wp, why shouldn't we? Actually, time permitting, I am going to investigate and add major sources to the table model, et al. Anyhow, I hope this helps. :) Cogito ergo sumo 17:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- great! Thanks for coming out. :) Cogito ergo sumo 21:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Deletion request

I deleted the old version of the image. Thanks for starting the articles on the Mall and the fountain. I'll see if I can add to them, after I finish expanding 55 Public Square. - EurekaLott 21:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Converting an article title to end in "accent", not "Accent"

(By the way, thank you for creating this article. I was concerned that the distinctive speech of this region was being neglected.)

Per standard wikipedia policy, I would like to convert "Tidewater Accent"

to "Tidewater accent". How would I go about correcting the title in this manner? Dogru144 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

There already is an article for "Tidewater accent." By making the move operation at Tidewater Aceent,

am I just making a redirect move from the Accent page, or am I running the risk of erasing the article under the correct title, "Tidewater accent?" Dogru144 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Thanks

Your welcome, all part of my job :) — Moe 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 81.whatever.it.was

The real reason was kind of long for an edit summary, so I omitted it completely. If I'm recalling correctly, it was a combination of the user not having vandalised since the last warning and also having just been blocked for a short period (15 minutes) for vandalism. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, did I read the date wrong in the block log? My mistake. At any rate, it looks like he's stopped, so at least it didn't cause problems either way. JYolkowski // talk 02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Stars & Stripes BarnStar

User:Confiteordeo is hear-by awarded the Stars & Stripes Barn Star for his diligent, and defiant defense of the American Language at John LaFarge, and probably other places too. Carptrash 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Confiteordeo is hear-by awarded the Stars & Stripes Barn Star for his diligent, and defiant defense of the American Language at John LaFarge, and probably other places too. Carptrash 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Although i'm more of a rules are made to be broken sort of the guy i have no problem recognizing good rule application when I see it. By the way, we are also intersecting at the Cleveland Fountain - Eternal Life? where i added some pictures that i'd just posted at Marshall Fredericks. I have a fair amount of Cleveland contect in my various edits, due to a past life in the general area. Carptrash 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On October 27, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Old Stone Church (Cleveland), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Stone Church

Nice job on the article, congrats on the front page "Did you know?" feature. Robert K S 03:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midwest Accent

I see that you are deleting my corrections regarding the General American accent, in the article "Midwest," which quite wrongly implies that General American is owned lock stock and barrel by that region. It's nonsense. The General American accent is spoken all over the north, from Seattle to Connecticut. You are going to have to come up with some citations which realistically and accurately show that the northern accent originated in or is unique to the Midwest, before I'll allow you to continue deleting my writings without a fight. It certainly is not unique to the Midwest, a region which was barely even settled by English speakers until 150 years ago, after the northern accent was known to exist in places like Pennsylvania and upstate NY, and Connecticut. It really bugs me to see the Midwest taking ownership of an accent which was originally the accent of most of the Northeast (discounting NYC, Boston, other parts of New England, etc). The original author blunders badly by lumping the accents of northeast together. Anybody from my region, the Syracuse, NY area, formerly Albany, NY, knows that our accent is typical of rural areas of the Northeast, and is totally indistinguishable from the accent of the Midwest. I challange anybody to put a group of Midwestern speakers side-by-side with upstate New Yorkers, and tell which is which. It's impossible, it's the same accent, utterly and completely the same. And we've been speaking this way since before the Midwest was even settled, so it's nonsense to say it's a Midwest accent.Morgan Wright 04:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

Updated DYK query On 6 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Playhouse Square Center , which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Sorry, thought the correct name is Ohio Theatre. Just realized it's a different theater, sorry about that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morrad (talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Watchdog treatment

Dear Confiteordeo,

I am not a Wikipedia newcomer and am well-aware of the site's policies. In the future, please refrain from posting them on my talk page unless I have violated 3RR or similar block-worthy policies. I do appreciate your comments, as they are always an excellent reminder in a heated debate. Of course, I certainly hope that you are also directing them at editors who engage in dishonest, POV behavior; in my experience, however, long-established editors who are aware of Wiki policies and continue to violate them are rarely deterred from their actions by logical debate. Also, regarding my West Virginia edit, this was done for consistency, as none of the other cultural regions in the introduction have the [citation needed] tag; this tag was introduced only as a result of the debate on the Midwestern page, and was inserted due to personal motives. Before the debate on the Midwestern discussion page, none of the cultural claims regarding West Virginia were ever marked by the [citation needed] tag. The same tag was inserted on the Kentucky page and then removed. In any event, verifiable resources will be found and hopefully they will serve to end this "discussion." I believe that you are aware of this because it seems as if you have been following the debate.

Thank you. --Gator87 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. And I am simply asking for consistency in your behavior with editors who use dishonest tactics and create POV edits. Assuming good faith, according to the principles page, does not equate to avoiding making corrections for unnecessary, POV additions. Wikipedia encourages correction of POV edits. Cites will be provided and this will only aid in the amelioration of the page. But editors have little reason to assume good faith when POV edits are made after a debate, with no consensus. And I will correct those when I find them. --Gator87 00:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am sorry if I have been confusing, but I will make my point on your behavior clear: I believe that you have commented on the nature of my remarks, but have ignored the practices of other editors recently. If this is a mistake on your part, it is most certainly understandable considering the flurry of edits that have been made recently on some of the pages for which you seem to act as a watchdog. I simply desire consistency in your actions, especially if you are going to comment on my talk page. Please regard the history of Rjensen's edits of the Midwest page beginning around the middle of December. My concerns have been that his edits - as reflected by his history - are POV, personally motivated and do not attempt to reflect debate or consensus; in other words, regardless of debate or consensus, he will continue to do as he so wishes. To a lesser extent, other users - Astuishin being notable - have engaged in dishonest edits (including, on several occasions, inaccurately portraying statements that I and other editors have made, and inaccurately portraying the history of the page, as shown by the page edit history.) Both users have also ignored the consensus regarding regional maps, and have inaccurately portrayed the striped/solid distinction of these maps (i.e., ignoring the word "portions") that can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Regions. --Gator87 00:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that was what I was asking for - a fair treatment of all editors that have been engaged in this rather heated debate. Oddly enough, a completely unrelated (and much more civil) debate has been taking place on the Southern discussion page, just reflecting the difficulty of drawing cultural lines. After re-inserting the map on my last edit to the page about a week ago, I improved upon the page citation in an attempt to satisfy all editors; so far, the map remains, that citation hasn't caused any controversy, and no new discussions have appeared on the talk page. Hopefully, this will remain the case and no further mediation or arbitration will be necessary. If after a month a consensus among the involved editors cannot be reached, I will certainly pursue mediation. In any event, thanks for your assistance and advice. --Gator87 01:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America vs. the United States

You left me a message in my talkpage because of the changes that I've been doing to the US article, according to you I'm violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, Now, the only thing I've been doing is removing that ridiculous idea of calling "America" to the United States, and I'm not gonna start arguing with you about this because this is no a debate, and since you're from the states you probably thought I was vandalizing the article.

I simply changed the word "colloquially" for "Locally" which is the right term to use because the only ones that refer to the United States as "America" are US citizens themselves, the other thing I changed was the statement "combined continents of North and South America" for "described North and South America as just one continent, which is the way it's taught in most countries around the world" again that's true, but apparently you don't like to hear that, and of course you love calling your country "America", this is not my point of view, is a fact, therefore I strongly advice you to stop being impartial and revert the changes the way I'd made them. Supaman89 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, there's nothing to debate, this is not my opinion, these are FACTS, you don't need a consensus to write them down, plus, even if I put topic on the discussion page, I wouldn't get anywhere, cuz most americans are close-minded just like you, and at the end they'll say "Well... I don't care I'm gonna keep calling it America like it or not", and of course I can't stop them from doing so, but I do can remove it from an official article. Supaman89 13:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your answer... are you going to keep reverting my changes?? Supaman89 02:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok just tell me, which word is the most appropriate one to use "colloquially" or "Locally", the last one right? (since that term is mainly use in the states), so that word has to change. Now, tell me do you see anything wrong with the following sentence: "described North and South America as just one continent, which is the way it's taught in most countries around the world"? that's true isn't it? so why won't you change them??! Supaman89 23:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually besides the USA the only nation that refers to the United States as "America" is the UK. The rest of the English-speaking nations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. do NOT use it, unless they're reading it from a text, for example in Canada you'll never see some saying "I just went to America" instead they'll say "I just went to the States" therefore it is more of a local word.

I don't know why you think the sentence "described North and South America as just one continent, which is the way it's taught in most countries around the world" is controversial... just look at these examples:

And those are just a couple, but is the same in pretty much every language, so as you can see they all consider "America" to be just one continent so the sentence is true. So what you say... can I change it now?. Supaman89 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"The earliest known use of the name America is from 1507, when a globe and a large map created by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, in Saint-Dié-des-Vosges, described the combined continents of North and South America"
The way the sentence is written implies that the continent USED to be called "America" but not any more, and as I proved before that's false, so changing the sentence to the way I proposed would make it clear.
And about the phrase "and colloquially as America" what you say if we change it to "and America by most english-speaking countries" again it would just make clearer. Supaman89 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok let's keep the word, but the other sentence do has to change, believe me it gives the idea that the term "America" is not used anymore and that the whole world calls it "the Americas". Supaman89 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Man, did you heard what I said??, I said that I agreed to keep the word "colloquially", but that the other sentence "The earliest known use of the name America is from 1507, when a globe and a large map created by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, in Saint-Dié-des-Vosges, described the combined continents of North and South America" does have to change because it gives the idea that the term "America" has been replaced by the term "Americas". Supaman89 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry maybe I didn't make myself clear, the phrase you proposed gives the exact same idea, nevertheless the sentence that I told you "described North and South America as just one continent, which is the way it's taught in most countries around the world" leaves no room for mistake. Supaman89 00:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Those maps are part of the English speaking world, in all the other languages and countries it's taught to be just one "America", and I don't think I need to cite examples again right? Supaman89 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then don't say so, but we do have to mention that the term "America" refers to just one continent in ALMOST every country in the world regardless of who was the first person to use it. Supaman89 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nooo wait, I would've started the discussion on the talk page way before I even started this one with you, but as I explained in the third paragraph "most americans are close-minded" (I don't mean to offend you) but is true, and then I would have to argue all over again and at the end I bet they won't care, and yes it is important to mention it because is not fair that they try to take over the name of the whole continent, so common dude, in your user page you say that you like to be impartial, despite of the love that you may have to the States... should we change it together? --Supaman89

Dude so what happened??. Supaman89 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you answer... Supaman89 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh you know what just forget about it and keep working on your stuff. Supaman89 20:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

hahaha good job, you got me there. --Supaman89

[edit] Appreciate the Hint

  • Appreciate the hint you gave for the "unsigned comment" thing. Chiss Boy 18:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Downtown Cleveland edits

RE: Downtown Cleveland Article: Sure thing, I actually worked on the pages a while back but hadn't updated it in a while. I figured it was time for the unsourced statement tag to come down. 24.160.173.191

[edit] Links to disambig pages

I wasn't exasperated, I'm sorry you thought I was being a jerk! The internet is terrible for communicating tone. I was trying to clarify why I knew that; I did the same thing as you a few months ago. Apparently we're always supposed to do that for disambig pages that don't have "(disambiguation)" in the title, when we want to link directly to a disambig page. It's to tell the difference between incoming links that should be going to a more specific article and ones that are there on purpose. Of course, it's rare that there's a need to link to a disambig page anyway, so not everyone knows about the guideline.--Cúchullain t/c 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thegryseone

I would really like to talk to you stranger. Maybe we can discuss our shared interests (linguistics, and other stuff). Thegryseone 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to ask anything you want here. May I also ask that you edit while signed in rather than under your IP address? It makes it easier for other users to follow conversations. Yours, Confiteordeo 01:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to start off by saying that I have been to Cleveland, and it is a nice town. You seem to know a lot about your town (I'm being cute when I say town; it's quite a large metropolitan area). I would like to know how old you are, and if you are a guy or girl (so I can know if I can call you "dude" or not). Don't worry, I won't stalk you. If you live in C-town, then you are not at a very convenient "stalking distance" from where I live. Thegryseone 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland, Ohio FAR

Cleveland, Ohio has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Loodog 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry

You've been dialoging with User:208.104.45.20. He actually is also sockpuppeting under User:Thegrysone. Dogru144 01:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] correction

The alias is User:Thegryseone. Cheers, Dogru144 02:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] correction

Fuck you. Just stop talking shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] undead comprise usage

I apologize; I wasn't trying to be pedantic, but I was trying to discuss it hoping that you'd agree that one version ("is comprised of") is still not as acceptable as "comprises" or "is made up of", even if it is no longer held in as low esteem as it once was, which I thought might influence your future edits since you copy edit articles. -- JHunterJ 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still haven't seen any convincing evidence to that effect. It doesn't matter, though, since I generally only edit for clarity, not to enforce prescriptive grammar. As far as copy editing goes, I don't care which form is used, as long as it makes sense in context, because it's not up to me to say which is better. I do, however, try to change disputed words and phrasing to avoid edit wars (which obviously worked at Ohio.) Confiteordeo 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marshall Fredericks

Thanks for your additions to the article. I had been in contact with the curators at the Marshall Fredericks Museum, and got their interest. Consequently, they added quite a bit of bigraphical material. I added the eternal links and most of the bibliography. I think we're getting somewhere.

I think that Levi Barbour should be left linked, but I need to do an article on him to 'get the red out.'

7&6=thirteen (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Stan

No problem. I occasionally look at the article because it links to the Fountain of Eternal Life, which I wrote. Glad to hear that the Museum has taken an interest in the article. I don't care if you link Levi Barbour or not, but since he seemed rather non-notable and unlikely to get an article soon, I copyedited the link out. I was also unsure if the link was supposed to be for the whole name of the fountain, or just for him. Good luck improving the article further. --Confiteordeo (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levi Barbour

Dear Confiterodeo:

He is a politician (University of Michigan Board of Regents) and a big philanthropist. Spent a lot of money on a lot of great projects (e.g., Betsy Barbour Hall at the University of Michigan) and did a lot of good. At the time there was a lot of money in Michigan, and some of the people who were doing very well decided to do some good.

I will take a look at the Fountain of Eternal Life.

I intend it just to pertain to his name, BTW.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Stan

[edit] Six Counties surrounding Cuyahoga

Greetings. With regard to your objection to the word 'sprawl' as being POV in the Cleveland article, I'd say as a native speaker of English that your claim is a stretch, but I'll concede that rhetorically it could bring negative connotations if it wanted to be viewed in such a way (e.g. by environmentalists calling urban sprawl a bad thing); I, however, meant it completely in the neutral sense of the verb. So far as your contesting the MSA versus CMSA stats for the area, the Greater Cleveland area drifts -- even if more slightly in some cases into all six of those counties. I spent the first two thirds of my life in Cleveland, and visit frequently. I know the area, and I realize that there are varying measures for census tracts. But whether or not a town in Cuyahoga County that is adjacent to another immediately over the border in Geauga, Medina, Lorain, Summit, Lake or Portage does not discount it as being part ofthe Greater Cleveland area. Yes, there may be varying claims to be made for towns closer to the Akron Canton area, meanwhile Aurora falls into the Cleveland area. 30 years ago, it may not have been the case, but by the late 80's and early 90's when I was commuting to Solon and Aurora for work, it was definitely part of the Greater Cleveland area. Brunswick would be a comparable example in Medina. Chardon in Geauga. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your tone, here or in your edit summary. That was indeed the sense of "sprawl" that I was referring to, and it should have been removed because of its potential to be misread. I didn't mean to imply that your editing was POV, but that the word was.
As for stating that there are seven counties in Greater Cleveland, you're talking about Greater Cleveland as an urbanized or economic area, a definition which would indeed include parts of the six counties surrounding Cuyahoga County. The article and I are talking about the MSA and CSA as defined by the Census Bureau, and the MSA (stupidly, in my opinion,) only includes four counties besides Cuyahoga. Until that is changed (and it very well may be in 2010,) it's incorrect to imply that all definitions of Greater Cleveland include seven counties. I'm not debating common sense here (as I would agree that Aurora is part of Greater Cleveland, of course,) but the Census Bureau unfortunately seems to lack that, and the more ambiguous wording is therefore preferable in this case. If you still disagree, consider responding here without reverting, so we can hopefully come to a consensus before changing the original wording.
Also, just so we're clear on the point and you don't tell me to "take a drive" again, I personally agree that the best definition of Greater Cleveland is the current CSA (seven counties.) I'm not sure about how Canton fits into the whole thing, though, because while it is fairly well-connected with Akron, I think it would be a stretch to call it "Cleveland." --Confiteordeo (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so we are clear: a) I never said anything about Canton being part of the GC area. What I meant was that Aurora should be included in the GC area, not the Akron-Canton area, although Aurora isn't too far away from the Akron area. b) Sorry if you don't appreciate my tone, I wasn't aware that I was offending you by suggesting that you may not be as familiar with the area as I am -- after all, your userboxes on your page show you being from France and Cleveland, so how am I supposed to know who or where you are? I am a born and raised Clevelander who now lives in Chicago.

You pointed out my tone being something you didn't appreciate. Well, to be perfectly frank, I was put off by your assumption that 'sprawl' had a negative tone, as there was no basis for your assumption in the context of the word's use. I don't really put much weight in the general (and ever increasing) over-sensitivity our society has towards terms and words that have recently achieved "buzz-word" status due to media overuse/abuse (see also: family values, "happy holidays", and the terms liberal and or neo-con. You are correct in assuming that a negative context can be assumed by others based on what one says or writes. But, rhetorical strategies very often misappropriate perfectly innocent words and manipulate them so that a once common adjectives/verbs is transformed into a negative term. Every time we fall into this, we take said hyper-sensitive society that much closer towards being a censored state -- do you want that? I doubt you do, and I am certain that I do not. I have a great passion for the English language, as I am a student of its literature as well as the lexicon accompanying it. Contextually speaking, in this case the use of 'sprawl' had no negative connotations. In your terms for justifying the revert I feel you have overreacted -- and that's being honest, not impolite. Bear in mind that everything written or said has a potential to be misread; it is the lifeblood of a rhetoricians work. I am not attemptng anything along those lines here.

I prefer a direct approach rather than sugar coating things too, so I'm not one to mince many words. I didn't mean to insult you, and if you were offended, then I apologize. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I would be doing you a great disservice as a fellow speaker of our language if I didn't ask you to reconsider how you approach terms like sprawl based on what anyone might think of the word. Foundationalism is a bad basket to put put eggs in. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KKK in Ohio

I made some changes to the Ohio article, in the history section of the main page I told you to place it in the sub history section if it went better there. The KKK had a vast amount of control in Ohio in the early part of the 20th century, I am sorry you want to white wash history.My info comes from the Ohio history central itself.[1] --Margrave1206 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of whitewashing history. You're free to put info wherever you please, as long as it's accurate, but it's presumptuous to tell other editors to do it for you. I removed your section because it inappropriately emphasizes a relatively unimportant and short period of Ohio's history in an overview section, and in it you make claims not supported by your source (i.e., that there was a "vast amount of control in Ohio within the city and state government.") Your source only mentions one official of an Ohio city (the mayor of Akron,) and no state leaders (I don't consider school board members to be "city officials.") If you can't find a better source, it's out. As a side note, your edits appear to be pushing a POV- without any context about the history of race relations in Ohio, how does a dubious two-sentence section truly improve the article? There's nothing to balance it out! That's not whitewash- it's NPOV. --Confiteordeo (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: History of North America

Greetings, well the Spaniards called such region as Northern America, and that is an historic name, it was Mexico's first official name as an independent nation, while your edits does not include the Spanish settlements in the former Mexican territory and "Northern America"/"colonial Mexico" does. Probably this name should be in another section. Cheers. JC 23:55, 22 Feb 2008 (PST)