Talk:Vilnija

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vilnija is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Initial dispute

Halibutt you're mocking again:) Your style just proves what I've been suspecting - mocking names of people (like calling Kazimieras Garšva - Kazimierz Garszwa) you do not like, mocking on Lithuanian language, describing Lithuanian generals in a provocative way, removing referenced information - you are utterly overboard.--Lokyz 12:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lokyz, don't waste your time. This editor isn't fooling anyone, other than himself. This recent flaming and anti-Lithuanian propaganda, only conclusively shows his true viewpoint and lack of objectivity. Don't expect his "friends" to chastise him either. It's a very strange case. He has shown the German and Russian (and most of Poland's neighbors) Wikipedians a weird, hateful history of editing, always careful to wrap himself up in a "scholarly" and "academic" veneer. The most bizarre aspect of this "Polish" editor, is he doesn't participate and contribute to "Polish Wikipedia". I'm not certain if this is a self-imposed exile, or he is simply not welcome there. The saddest aspect of all of this, is that I'm sure many Polish contributors are embarrassed by his actions, but are powerless to do anything about it. Besides, now that he has removed his mask, more people who had genuine doubts about him and gave him the benefit of the doubt, see the true picture. Dr. Dan 14:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It saddens me to see that we have editors who support point of views of extremist organizations, contribute little to Wikipedia project and, for the lack of better word, run a 'campaign of hatred' against some of most productive editors to this project (like User:Halibutt). On the bright side, WP:V and WP:NPOV had and will triumph in such cases. If you have any constructive things to add, please do, but don't expect us to waste time dealing with personal attacks and unsourced claims like above. PS. Kazimierz Garszwa was the version of the name used in Polish language publications (ex. [1])- please write a letter to them to ask them to abstain from 'mocking'. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah Piotrus, please, could you provide any evidence, that any user, as you did just state, does support Vilnija's views?--Lokyz 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus said more than was there to say. I'll only add that if you, dear Lokyz, feel ok with calling Poles with some Lithuanian names, then why am I not entitled to calling Lithuanian with Polish names? //Halibutt 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
After some reconsideration, Halibutt seems to found someone's at his level. I even think they could be best friends, because of similarity of both of them in temper and behaving:)--Lokyz 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note my reply is to the old version of the post. My pleasure, Lokyz. You can also see them on our (my and Halibutt's userpages), together with stuff like real names and such. Unlike some people, we are proud of our contributions, and don't mind signing our real names and creditentials on the pages. PS. I am sure that both you and Dr. Dan can find more productive venues than attacking Halibutt. Copyedit, create articles... etc. Please try to avoid personal attacks and slanderous accusations like above. We grow thick skin on Wikipedia (as in any other public discussion forums), but users who spend too much on talk offending others may find themselves on ArbCom enforced civility parole or banned from this project for disruptive editing. Please keep this in mind. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lokyz, the formula is a very simple one. Attack, insult, pretend to be the injured party, and then threaten the the original party with "action against them". Besides now you know, according to P.P., that Halibutt is his "real" name. Dr. Dan 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As to my real name, there's a link to my homepage at my user page. As to other issues - I'm not interested in such chatter. I write articles and let the others discuss them ad nauseam, change them into some strange propaganda or improve them. //Halibutt 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Authors of the article, have you read this book: Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europe?. Only few pages can be gotten from internet and there's nothing about the Vilnija. Have you got it from friend or maybe you know some library? Or have you bought it? Was there anything about the Vilnija?

Check page 151: The petition was also signed by representatives of extremist organizations such as the LNDP, the UJL, and the association Vilnija. //Halibutt 07:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Does the book cover Polish extremist organizations sufficiently as well? Are you planning to write about them, or expand on them on Wikipedia? Do you have enough sources to do so, or are Lithuanian organizations more to your liking or level of expertise? Dr. Dan 14:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Does the book cover Polish extremist organizations sufficiently as well? - check for yourself, it's easily-available. Such a noted scholar as yourself should have no problems obtaining it.
  2. Are you planning to write about them, or expand on them on Wikipedia? - if some Polish nationalist starts to convince all uninformed editors that radical Polish organizations are in fact reliable, I'd do my best to write a short article on them for all to see and check for themselves. So far I saw none of such attempts, while I saw numerous attempts to present Vilnija as some sort of a reliable source.
  3. Do you have enough sources to do so, or are Lithuanian organizations more to your liking or level of expertise? - Again, you probably know that there are plenty of libraries where I live. //Halibutt 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kazimierz Garszwa

While I usually prefer not to use Polonized/Lithuanized names of contemporary Lithuanians or Poles, I don't quite see why would "Kazimierz Garszwa" be supposed to be offensive ? Would calling the Polish president Lechas Kačynskis be intended as an insult as well ? I think you are beating around the bush, guys. --Lysytalk 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've only now checked the history of the article, and I think that using Kazimierz Garszwa within the article qualifies for WP:POINT. But can we get over it now, when it's already corrected ? --Lysytalk 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Lysy, please remember that calling Kaczyński, Kačynskis, on English WP would be innappropriate, stupid, and possibily disruptive. Depending on context, maybe even offensive to some. Since you humorously weighed in on the gender issue, let me do likewise. As to his calling another editor a female, when over a greater part of a year of interaction, that's obviously not the case. Well, that's simply the low mentality of a "frat boy", thinking he's Emily Plater, at the height of an insurrection. Incidentally, the second picture down (yes, the one where he's sucking his thumb), on his user page, is rather androgynous, don't you think? Dr. Dan 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

May I inquire about the edit summary - "nationalists are gonna love me for this"? The meaning of it seems to escape me. Andrius 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Better ignore it, maybe ? The discussion in this talk page has been mostly pointless already. I would suggest that we'd be better off focussing on the article itself instead of edit behaviour or summaries. How about that? --Lysytalk 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Whaaat? And miss the chance to spend 10 hours and 1000 kilobytes discussing such an interesting edit summary that can be interpreted in 100 different ways? Sure :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I won't bore you with my interpretation and my thoughts on it (as much as I feel the need to do so). It is now, officially, ignored. By me, at least ;) Andrius 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Andrius, please read WP:dick, for a full understanding of the meaning of it. It's a faster way to understand it. There should be a link to his user page. Dr. Dan 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Dan, you can offend me like you did in the past, but please do not escalate your wars on others and leave Andrius alone. He's done nothing wrong to you. //Halibutt 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Andrius is not a fool, and knows precisely what I meant. Nice try though, Hali! Dr. Dan 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I got what you meant straight away, but I think it was unnecessary. Even though it may reflect the situation (as I see it) accurately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndriusG (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
Hali: WP:DFTT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hali: let me agree with you on this one, Piotrus said more than there was to say (sic). He usually does. Dr. Dan 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P.P.'s Pride in their Contributions

P.P., aka Prokonsul Piotrus, babbled something on the above talk that he and Halibutt are proud of their contributions to WP, and that they sign their "real" names and use their creditentials (sic). And the point of that statement would be what P.P.? And is Hali also proud of this openess and honesty? Dr. Dan 06:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consult WP:LIVING before adding doubtful statements

As headline says. M.K. 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters, WP:LIVING concenrs itself with people, not organziations. For second, if you have specific concenrs, list them here first.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needing cite check

Some provided refs do not match with text provided in article, soem removed, some maybe still in place need to be carefully checked. M.K. 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to be more specific? Removal of referenced information is not constructive. Please discuss references which you think are incorrect here first, you have been asked many times to talk first and do controversial edits second. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Citing one reference and using it to broadly accuse an organization of being extremist, is a very dangerous and unscholarly way of adding information to an encyclopedia. Placing it it in the opening statement is even worse, and is something typically seen as a provocation. Currently I am trying to find out the sources that Piotrus used to claim that the League of Polish Families and Samoobrona (Self Defense of the Repuplic of Poland), are extremist organizations, and anti-Semitic to boot. A further falsehood of P.P. aka the "Prokonsul", is his statement that any of the editors involved in this discussion are supporters of this organization (yes the one above, where he is saddened by his own fantasy). Dr. Dan 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
We have quite a few refs that describe 'Vilnija' as extremist (although I prefer to stick to English soruces and avoid Polish, they are enough per WP:RS to back up the English one). Care to point out where I have claimed that LPF or S are 'extremist'? I would also like to ask you to stop personal attacks (like accusing others of 'falsehood'). By making claims without any proof you are the one to whom such a description can apply, I am afraid. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Who are you speaking for when you state, We have quite a few refs that decribe 'Vilnija' as extremist... Is this the Royal we, or some "group" that you represent? I'm happy to tell you where you accused these Polish organizations of being extremist and anti-Semitic, it was on November 8, 2005, when you created the peculiar article Żydokomuna (please check the article's history earliest entry). Now am I wrong that you did not say, that you were saddened that there are editors who supported the extremist organization, Vilnija? I have not read anyone supporting any organizations on this talk page. Isn't this statement of your a falsehood, or am I reading it wrong? Your statement is on this page made on January 13, 2005, at 18:13. Kindly quit making false statements, denying them, and then accusing me of making them. Dr. Dan 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
See, Dr. Dan, I was just translating the Polish Wikipedia article, and as I had no sources to defend the translation, I had no problems with the term extremist being removed soon afterwards by another editor (this also thought me to be careful translating articles from Polish Wikipedia, which is habitually underreferenced). Thus please stop misinterpreating other's actions: I did not call those organizations extremist, I merely translated a source that said this. On the other hand, as shown in this discussions, we have editors here who try to remove a referenced claim of extremism, and instead claim that Vilnija is an organization of Lithuanian teachers... seeing the general lack of references to show that Vilnija is anything but extremist real-life group of POV pushers, I have problems understanding who other then supporter of such organization would - lacking any refs to the contrary - continue to argue that the plethora of sources that call it extremist, nationalist and anti-Polish should be discarded. PS. Definite proof we have Vilnija fans among us.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
If you say so, Prokonsul. Your statement regarding these Polish organizations is not a translation of the Polish article. It is a declarative statement made by you (perhaps extrapolating information from Polish WP), without any explanation until now. Interesting that you should take wild and unreferenced accusations from Polish WP, and put them in English WP. I notice that the original Polish information and your so-called "translation" are no longer part of the Encyclopedia. However, let's return to the topic at hand, namely Vilnija, and your false statement that any of the editors involved in this discussion are supporters of this organization. Please do not make false statements, deny making them, and then accuse others of doing so. Dr. Dan 06:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry Dr. Dan but if there are no discussions related to the Vilnija, I have no time to waste on this talk page, and especially no time to waste in repeating myself for the umpteenth time when you ignore any of my comments that you don't like.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I have seen many examples of weaseling out of embarrassing situations by contributors, but this one of yours is going way up on the list. The relevance of your calling these Polish organizations extremist and anti-Semitic (then denying it, claiming that you are "translating" a completely different sentence) to this article and its talk page is pretty obvious. You were also asked to back up your blatently false statement regarding "supporters" of Vinija involved in this talk page. You didn't, because you can't. That's relevant too. And lastly, no answer to the question of who you meant by WE. Are you we? Is we a group working in tandem? Dr. Dan 14:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] from outside

"Extremist" is never an objective word, and always is a judgement. The organization can not be called that in the first sentence without qualification. Rather than resort to weasel words, it would be better to find a more neutral term. The allegations of extremism later in the article are at least documented.

More to the point, I do not see any defense of its positions, which are always described in negative terms. This is unacceptable. This is most marked in the 2 bulleted items in section 1. The objective presentation of this group's positions, followed by comments from various sides, will show the nature of its views. There is no need to resort to one-sided reporting. I do not have the language knowledge to write a proper description, but I know enough to remove what isn't. Clean this up. I am of neither Lithuanian or Polish descent, though I would have no shame in being of either nationality. DGG 21:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Take note that adding the word sometimes, while indeed softening the remarks about the nature of Vilnija, does not change much in the meaning. The problem is that we don't really have any sources stating to the contrary, while most of sources to mention Vilnija at all state clearly that it's nationalist (which is pretty much an objective word) or extremist (less so).
Other thing is that in the first (original) part we have a pretty accurate presentation of the organization's beliefs, together with the most common criticism and we also state who criticises Vilnija - and what for. The problem to me is the second para, which IMO tries to engage in some sort of a polemic and discusses whether the Vilnija's aims are right or not. IMHO we're here not to decide whether someone is right, but to report his views. Am I right? //Halibutt 23:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the second paragraph is indeed the problem. It is so much a problem that I didn't attempt to edit it. The views can be deciphered, but not easily. My suggestion here is that the detail is excessive, and a shorter summary might be easier to do NPOV. As for their views, the fair thing to do is a translated quote from their platform. A representative quote or 2. DGG 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Second para or second section?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] remaning problems and copyed.

I have adjusted things for clarity in somewhat more detail. and copyedited it for proper style. DGG 07:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As follows--
  1. I took another look at the article. There have been some good edits since I last saw it. I consider the first section reasonably NPOV. The problem is with "The conception of the Vilnja "
  2. I changed the title to "Specific Controversies" which is I think what's intended.
  3. I regrouped the sections. There seem to be two parts: , Politics in general, and Schooling and Language; the second part has a reply; the first part does not, and I cannot write it, but it should have a paragraph saying what reply the groups opposed to the party make to the point
  4. I removed "alias Vilnja " after the mention of the name of the party -- I do not know what meaning is intended, perhaps "from which its name is derived" ?
  5. what does "tuteishians" mean?
  6. Is there a separate Vilnja Municipality and Vilnja district? and Vilinja County? and which of them is "Vilnius district municipality"? Please check each of the uses and be sure it's right, for I may have made errors here.

DGG 07:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please suggest how do deal with contributor, who removes info which he do not like[2] and later removes tags, motivating that there is no POV issues [3]? M.K. 13:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that section is problematic. First, it still (after yours and mine copyedits) is rather poor English (and what is 'put-upon'?). I added some citation requests to the claim for some Vilnija claims; I certainly agree that views Election Action of Lithuania's Poles on Vilnija claims should be added. I have ilinked tuteishians - we have an article on that subject. As for the Vilnius districts, I am not an expert on the Lithuania administrative division, and I am afraid I cannot help with that. Please note that the numbers for Polish minority are well referenced in Polish minority in Lithuania (with the English site of Lithuanian census), so they can be verified if needed that way. Although Elections in Lithuania is not referened, it has good a elink that should help reference more relevant numbers: [4]. I think we can agree now that there are no POV issues here, just poor grammar and insufficient citations in some places.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doubtful references continues

Another ref [5] which such point that occasion criticized by the Lithuanian government as well do not point nothing even close. M.K. 12:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The link is added for the sake of simplicity, just type the title in the search box and you'll find the proper article. Sadly there's no permanent links available on that site and all search results after some time redirect to the main page. Which does not mean that the article's not there. //Halibutt 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody will use the search box to find if this article properly uses its sources. If such precedent will be established the contributors will with ease start referencing google search page with statement The link is added for the sake of simplicity, just type the title in the search box and you'll find the proper article. M.K. 10:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The proper solution is to quote relevant text on talk, and/or also try to link to the stable page verion in the Internet Archive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I have removed this confusing part added - according to the summary - from 1939 book.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

This minor marginal organization that nobody has heard of is presented as something important and influential. --Doopdoop (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was created after several editors tried to use organization's sources and arguments on Wiki. It is likely marginal, however its POV has a non-marginal support from certain editors, and as such this article is useful in illustrating their POV. Feel free to add "minor" or "marginal" to the article's lead, although I'd prefer to see a reference for this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Who are those editors? --Doopdoop (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion(s) above should be enlightening; as well as discussion on pages related to the subject. Nonetheless I'd suggest we stick to 'discuss article, not editors' (and also remember WP:DFTT). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is an article about a small group of off-line trolls that really doesn't belong to Wikipedia, and your reason for keeping it is some mysterious group of on-line trolls. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the bottom line is the organization is notable. If you disagree, WP:AFD is that'a'way.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.", so I'm placing notability tag too. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:42, 4 March 208 (UTC)
The sources are notable and the organisation is notable enough in Polish-Lithuanian relations to be included and detailed.--Molobo (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very important information is missing - how many members the organization has (one, two...)? --Doopdoop (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong question. Question should be like do Vilnija, as organization described in this article, exists, M.K. (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't even know how to reply to that. Other than noting that shameful things cannot be erased easily, no matter how one may wish for that to happen.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
IF you have to add something constructive, do it apropriate matter. While I have to agree with Doopdoop previuos concerns of notability as well M.K. (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute of notability is not the same as dispute of neutrality. If you doubt me, please use Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Discussion of notability may merit inclusion on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard, or a simple AfD. Please use a proper venue (and tag) to address those points. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE problem. As is usual with fringe articles there are minority views that have references, and majority simply has no documented opinion and so majority views are completely missing from the article. --Doopdoop (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. If you think that the entire article is of undue weight to Wikipedia, than the article again falls under nonencyclopedic/fringe/AfD section I discussed below. If you think the article does not fairly represent some point of view, could you explain here whose POV is underrepresented - and cite sources to support that claim? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess there are some people who know how many members this organization has and how popular it is, but POV of these people is missing. --Doopdoop (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Lack of information does not equal bias. There are scores of organization articles on Wikipedia without information on memebership or popularity; in most cases they are not biased. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Another NPOV problem - non-extremist viewpoints and proposals of organization are not represented in the article. --Doopdoop (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And how do you know there are any?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As this discussion goes round and round like a roulette ball, the accusuation that "some" WP editors "support" this organization remains unanswered. Even though it has been suggested more than once, the who still remains unanswered. Who? But every time the roulette ball does stop, it lands on the first "edit summary" of the article stub, on the day it was created. It read, "nationalists are gonna love me for this one". Yes, how nice! Dr. Dan (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you could provide me with the url of Vilnija webpage, I will answer your question. --Doopdoop (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It does not seem to have a signficant presence on the web, at least as much as I can tell based on Polish and English sources. It is very likely I am missing something in Lithuanian (which seems most logical), but I don't know that language and Lithuanian-speaking editors involved in discussions here so far have not shown much willingness to help with expanding this article (other than in apologetic fashion, as you can see from the content and history of the 'Specific controversies' section).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

support? I can not think of many organizations I would be further away from supporting, but that does not mean that it is not appropriate for them to have a WP article. A political movement need not even have a formal organisation. If people talk about the movement is such a way as to provide information that can be verified as having come from Reliable sources, and the movement is of more than minimal importance, then there should be an article about it. I read "nationalists are gonna love me for this one" as ironic. The way to look at articles on politics, is that fair articles on people or groups who you dislike will show them as they are, and others who do not know of them will see the article accurately describing them and form the correct opinion. DGG (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you might have found it ironic ("nationalists are gonna love me for this one"), but I found it to be an insulting and taunting provocation. Yet although the "Prokonsul" has claimed that so-far, un-named, WP editors are supporters of this organization, I would like to know who they are? Or maybe he made a mistake, and wants to retract the statement. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
DGG is right, the comment was ironic. And Dan, you are wrong. I don't think of you that often as to aim my irony at you, even if you feel a nationalist. In fact I don't think of you at all when writing new articles. Sorry.
In other words, please be so kind as to explain how was my edit comment insulting to you - and if it really was - I'll apologize. //Halibutt 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)