User talk:Leyasu

RE: Alternative Metal

I think you got the wrong person. If you look at the edit history of Alternative Metal, you will see that I do not appear in it. I think the user you want is AJ Ramirez (talk · contribs). The only association I have with that user is that I weclomed him back in September. Please make sure you get the right person next time, you got me worried! All the best, FireFox 09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is perfectly fine, no harm done. Kind regards, FireFox 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternative metal

I appreciate your thoughts, and I do want to approach this subject with the most civility. Curiously, I really don't have a vested interest in the subject; it's more that so many people were debating the topic and not doing anything about it I've had to force myself into the position of implementing change (plus the grammar was generally atrocious and some sections were just pasted word for word from websites or other articles). I've had to do similar edits for Noise pop and College rock. I'm going to move to editing Nu metal in a day or two in order to clarify the difference between the two (although there is a case for a huge overlap between the two terms, since stores and music sites (including mp3.com, among others) where I've found "Alternative metal" in usage list a number (but not all) of nu-metal bands; "nu-metal" is genetrally used in the press and genre discussion for post Korn/Limp Bizkit alternative metal bands that are thoroughly mainstream, soemtimes as dinstinction and other times derisively). The thing is if anyone else has thoughts on the subject besides the two of us, they haven't really been sharing them recently (especially on the topic of a merge). I'd really like them to contribute to the discussion. Right now all I'm seeing is us going back and forth, and that certainly is not helping. WesleyDodds 15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

More a request for greater discussion, but that involves other people getting involved, which we can't necessarily force others to do. I know what you think, and you know what I think, but for the past week or so there has been no discussion from anyone else.

Something else that should be considered is that Alternative metal survived the vote for deletion; twice, I might add. A merger would be akin to deleting it, since the page would no longer exist and any searches would under a merger redirect to Nu metal. You did propose the idea of a merge during the vote, but no one else did, and no one else concurred. Right now we need to have greater discussion on the topic of a merge before anything so drastic is undertaken. WesleyDodds 16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I've found sources that distinguish between nu metal and alternative metal, specifically that nu metal is the direct descendant of Korn and the Deftones rather than all so-called alternative metal bands. The important point is that both terms are used quite often; however, as our discussion have established, neither of them are used with exact accuracy and consistency as, say, something like Shoegazing or grindcore is to describe a particular distinct style. I have a couple of things to incorporate from my searches here and there, but due to personal obligations I've only slept like five hours today, so after a loooong rest I'll work on incorporating more links and sources in the articles. My first priority will be writing a proper history of nu-metal because, really, right now there's 3 sections or so detailing the trends that led up to nu-metal (alt metal, grunge, and post-grunge) without actually dealing with the subject at hand. Those will be merged together and followed up in detail. Once that's done, I'll work on the grammar, espeically rewriting sentences in both articles in order to make them both internally consistent (obviously a problem when working on something like Wikipedia where people add bits piecemeal). Hopefully by the time I'm done with that (or in the best scenario, before I'm done) there will be more contributions from others on both pages. That's my main concern right now, that no matter how this entire discussion turns out, once all is said and done someone chimes in to say "Wait a minute!" when it would have been more productive for everyone if voices had been raised and work done by others at this moment. WesleyDodds 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gothic / Doom metal band list thingy

Hi, fella. It might be worth dropping a comment onto the Talk page of the guy who separated that list off into a separate article. Chances are he won't spot the comments you made on his edit and you could end up reverting each other's changes ad-infinitum :) IainP (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Within Temptation category

I removed the category Category:Symphonic metal from the article Within Temptation, since I saw no use for it. Though I will agree that symphonic metal describes their style better than gothic metal, the category for symphonic metal simply doesn't exist.. and the only band listed there is WT. -- SoothingR^(pour) 12:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess it's fine then. Good luck with your cat sorting, and merry christmas. -- SoothingR^(pour) 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nightwish

Why did you remove the references? They may make the article look a little out of order, but they're a necessary evil. I'm trying to get this article through FA in a few days, and as you can read here, if there aren't any inline citations there is a big chance that Nightwish will not make it to featured article-status. -- SoothingR^(pour) 09:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:CITE

I think you have misunderstood the point of WP:V and WP:CITE. Yes, people have said it and yes, it's therefore a fact. However, Wikipedia policy tells us that information in articles have to be sourced. There inline references just make it clearer to see what comes from where. It's just so the provided info is easier to verify for others. Please stop removing them. SoothingR 12:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, that's just there to make clear where those quotes and little pieces of information came from. SoothingR 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do use the Notes-section, but I use those inline refs to point to that note section. So it is clear what note belongs to what part of the article. It's not all that strange. Many featured articles do that. SoothingR 14:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's just a matter of taste. Personally, I don't mind them. I wouldn't be able to think of a better way to implement the policy on verifiability. This is WP:CITE in optima forma. SoothingR 14:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Leyasu. I have been watching this discussion unfold, and since you are both so close to violating WP:3RR, I feel its time for me to interfere. SoothingR is fairly correct in this issue, despite the fact that you are too, to some degree. But the fact remains that inline citations have become somewhat of a standard when it comes to citing soruces for quotes or very specific facts, and those will certainly contribute for the article to reach Featured status. So if would please just let go and accept that they are needed, all would benefit. They break the flow of the sentence somewhat, true, but they should be there if the article is to pass the WP:FAC proccess. Regards, --Sn0wflake 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Gothic-doom

Gothic metal and gothic-doom are the very same thing. What you call "gothic-doom" is simply the evolution of the genre. It's the same thing as creating a new genre for more recent heavy metal bands simply because they don't play in the exact same way Sabbath did. A genre will always be a genre. What is your main claim for classifying bands as gothic-doom? Abscence of vocals on opposing ranges? --Sn0wflake 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not willing to push this issue forward, as the difference between the definitions seems to not be worth discussing over, but I will have to ask three things of you, however. First, make the inwikis correct in order not to confuse people, in this manner: gothic metal#Gothic doom, followed by "|gothic-doom metal", this will take the reades to that specific subsection of the gothic metal article. Second, if you are going to insist on changing categories also, you will have to create a category for Gothic-doom, that's non-negotiable. Don't forget that the second word on the genre is always in lower case. Also aknowledge that not all editors may agree with you, and the fact that I don't think the issue is worth discussing over does not by any means make this consensus. As such, my third request is that you provide sources for your claims on gothic metal. I hereby remove myself from this discussion unless my input is needed. What I am asking of you is merely from an admin standpoint. --Sn0wflake 01:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nightwish

While we are at it, what is the problem with the Nightwish article? --Sn0wflake 01:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What edit did I censor in Nightwish? If I did, it was certainly by mistake. I sincerely can't remember any instance of that. If you could please point out specific edits, and I mean specific edits, so that I can understand what you are talking about, I will be more than glad to review them. --Sn0wflake 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute with LGagnon

I have contacted the editor, and will keep an eye on the Talk page to mediate further discussions. However, I will have to ask of you to be more delicate in your words and assumptions. Often, when you speak, you seem to be making attacks, even if in truth you are not. Please, add reference on the article to back up your claims. Always. Opposing editors cannot argue against a reliable source. You may contact me in case the editor makes another threat, that behavior is not allowed according to the rules of the Wikipedia. Keep your cool, above all. --Sn0wflake 01:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Seeing that is unlikely that any of you will voluntarily come to terms, I will do what I feel is fair for both parties. From now on, you both have a clean record. Please, please try to forget your old issues. However, from this point on, whenever one of you makes a personal attack, I will enforce a 6-hour block. If you can discuss amicably, best for everyone, but if you cannot, at least you will think twice before saying something offensive to one another.

I know it's hard to overcome this sort of dispute, but I have done so a couple of times in the past. My suggestion is that first you both stay away from the article for at least a day, then, when you return to discussion, try to not step on toes. Give suggestions instead of enforcing ideas, do not discuss much, instead, produce reliable sources. If you act in this manner, all will work out. --Sn0wflake 04:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: The only way of restricting an user from a specific article (or your User page) is by means of WP:RfAr, which is a very serious proccess, and which I do not reccomend for such a small discussion.

Nightwish, again

Leyasu, first, if you have concerns over the complexity of the language on the article, you should understand that this is an attempt at an English encyclopedia, and as such does not need to have a simplistic and straightforward language, on the contrary, it is expected to have what we call brilliant prose. For simple language, we have the simple English Wikipedia at http://simple.wikipedia.org. Issue number two, I do not see as significant, you can surely live with that. As for three, it is our duty to show all significant POVs. I did understand that you work with music, but then again, so do I. That does not necessarily means your POV should prevail, even if you know you are right! The Wikipedia is a place for all POVs to be considered, and at times there are no clear answers to questions, even if you think you have them. I mantain that I do not consider your complaints relevant on the greater scheme of things, please try to see the bigger picture. The article still needs certain improvements, but you might be missing the point. --Sn0wflake 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Wikipedia:Personal attacks.

I didn't say you made a personal attack. I said that if you make one, you will be temporarily blocked; the same is valid for Gagnon. Your comment about ignoring him was not very nice, and borders on that, but is by no means a blockable offence, it's just absolutely not helping. In case you are wondering, his POV is the one which will stand in case you do not provide any evidence to back that he is wrong, or at least that you are right. --Sn0wflake 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu, I have already asked it a couple thousand times, but again: please compile the sources which prove your point and post them on my new thread at the Talk page. --Sn0wflake 07:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR on Grunge music

You are invited to edit again once the block has expired. The evidence is here. The 3 revert rule is extremely important and should not be violated under any circumstances. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Block

Leyasu, you did make a personal attack, by insulting LGagnon, so I have blocked you for 6 hours. Please do not repeat this, do not insult him, this does not help. --Sn0wflake 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Nu Metal

I noticed that you reverted the Nu metal article, removing what you claimed to be vandalism. I fail to see what exactly is "vandalism" in the orignal page. The entire entry that you deleted was truth. While I can see how you may have considered genre-bashing, I can assure you that it was all true. Instead of reverting the article, it would've likely been better to have re-worded what was said, as it did come off as slightly biased, regardless of how true it was. -D14BL0 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On personal attacks

See Leyasu, around here we do not call people "meglomanical". We might think that, we might be sure of that, we might have enough expertise to be able to assert that by the way a person writes... but we don't call them meglomanical. Neither we give any other adjective with negative conotations to them. Just refer to him as "editor LGagon" or something like that and avoid commenting on his behavior, but rather focus on his contributions. --Sn0wflake 19:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am getting tired of having my actions questioned by both of you. You don't get a body of admins to surpervise your minor conflict, rather, you get whoever volunteers, in that case, me. There are so many other ways you can say he is not acting reasonably without making it sound like an insult! In the first place, you shouldn't even be calling him anything, as I have already said, you should focus on his contributions, not on his person. --Sn0wflake 01:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I will kindly remind you that you were the one who invited me to mediate this dispute, not the other way around. If you think that I am victimizing you even after everything I have done to help the resolution of this dispute, then by all means, file a complaint against me in order to attempt removal of my sysop rights. The one at fault, in reality, is me, as no other admin would have gone to the lengths I have to solve this petty dispute. I have no obligation of doing this, so I would suggest that you stopped complaining and moved on with the dispute resolution. If you send another complaint with no basis, I'm out of this mediation proccess. I clearly stated that you both had a clear record from that point on and any personal attack any of you made, would result in a six hour block. You implied that he had behavioral issues. You got blocked. That's it. --Sn0wflake 02:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It falls both under the bullet Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. and on the bullet Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." . As promised, this is the last complaint I'll answer. I await for your version of the article. --Sn0wflake 03:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Grunge

OK. I will wait for the other editor's view and negotiate the removal of the template with him, meanwhile, please avoid interaction with him. --Sn0wflake 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion of the dispute resolution is as follows: the template will be removed, and the category stays. Assertions that grunge is similiar to hardcore punk may be made as long as it is made explicit that there is no consensus on that. Leyasu and LGagnon are encouraged to avoid interaction in the future, and in case that is made necessary, it is advised that unless it is a trivial matter, they ask for an admin to proxy the discussion. The article will be unprotected ASAP and admin Sn0wflake makes a request that both editors stay away from the article for at least a few days, only reverting the occasional vandalism if it is necessary. Regards, --Sn0wflake 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, things seem to be stable now... drop by the Talk page in case you have anything to add to the new definition paragraph, but please do not talk directly to LGagnon OR edit the article just yet. Just add anything you might want in the paragraph in a follow-up post and I think we are done with this dispute. --Sn0wflake 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, but you're on your own this time. See my User page for more information. I'm sure somebody else will be able to help out. Best, --Sn0wflake 04:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What Is Your Problem?

According to you, anything that isn't your edit is POV, Vandalism, or Harrassment - obviously not the case. And continuously no source/explanation to back up these claims, either way. Judging from the posts from others above, this matter between you and I (related to the Gothic Metal, Symphonic metal and Dark metal articles) is definitely not an isolated incident. --Danteferno 02:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu - anybody who doesn't agree with your edits you call "meglomaniacal". Anytime someone asks you for sources of your edits, you think of this as a personal attack. See the posts from others, above - this is not only between you and I. It seems even an admin

abandoned trying to work things out with you due to the fact you continuously attack people who don't agree with you. --Danteferno 10:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I'm taking a bit of a break from controversy at the moment ;). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks! --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation cabal case request

Dear Leyasu: Hello there, I'm Nicholas, coordinator and mediator down at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. A request has recently been made via e-mail for us to mediate a dispute relating to the Deathrock and Deathrock fashion articles, and the person who made the request named you as an involved party. The case is at:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-16 Deathrock & Deathrock fashion

If you would please be so kind as to read the request and comment as appropriate, stating whether or not you'd be willing to enter mediation, I would be most grateful. Remember, you can't be subject to any disciplinary action for what happens during mediation, or if you don't want to mediate - you can do exactly what you like, and this process is entirely voluntary and unofficial. Should you ever require any assistance or support relating to either this mediation request or the dispute, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From Now On

If you cannot cite sources/examples of your claims, whether it is an allegation against anyone or a claim you're making in an article, please do not respond to any of my messages again. Thank you. --Danteferno 15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging

In regards to the article Norsecore, just so you know, to comply with GFDL requirements for author attribution, the proper thing to do after a merge is to redirect where the content was merged to. Deleting it and replacing it with the redirect would eliminate the contribution history. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Norsecore

G'day Leyasu,

in future, I suggest you learn what you're talking about before you label other editors' actions as "vandalism". Calling good-faith contributors vandals is a personal attack which, if you don't already know, is a definite no-no 'round here. I think you should also refrain from tagging articles for speedy deletion until you learn what is and is not a valid speedy reason. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What I was doing was cleaning up the backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by deleting speedy-tagged articles that need deletion, and removing the tags from articles that don't (often there are two or three). Tagging an article for speedy deletion means "ask an admin if he's willing to delete it". I am one of the admins who check up on the tagged articles and delete them, if necessary. As such, I fail to see how either action — deleting, or removing the tag — could possibly be considered "vandalism" by anyone willing to engage their brain for a few moments.

User:Howcheng has explained to you above why the article couldn't have been deleted. Many admins will do the merge and redirect work themselves if that's the result of the AfD discussion, but some won't. If you want to merge an article, add the relevant stuff to the merge target (using an edit summary like "merge from Norsecore"), then replace the original article with a redirect. Neither article gets deleted. The speedy tag was inappropriate and, if you take a look at the wording of the tag, the proper action when dealing with an inappropriate speedy tag is to remove the tag. It could not have been vandalism. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are handled by having the only line of the article be #REDIRECT [[Target]], where "Target" is replaced by the name of the article you want to redirect to. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

re:Metalcore

Thanks for the notify, looks like a standard section blanking to me, which I reverted. (Personally, I'm not really a fan of metalcore, too hard on my ears.) — TheKMan^talk 05:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops.

Sorry about the typo in your name in my edit summary at the gothic metal talk page. :P -- parasti ^(talk) 08:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Effort pooling

At this point I think we have an idea of where Nu metal and Alternative metal are going. I think it's important to keep in mind that neither are absolute genres; alternative metal has a two-fold defintion based upon the common ground it has with metal and alternative, and nu metal more than anything refers to a movement than actual stylistic traits (although many bands do share them, as is prone to happen when trends become popular). However at this point, until we get more sources for either topic, there's little we can do. Personally, I want to focus on copyediting both articles (given I'm an English major and that's probably what I should be doing on Wikipedia above all else); that is, correcting grammar, rearranging sentences, rewriting parts, and resturcting the articles to make them more clear and concise. Basically, if you have any additional info to add to either of these articles, add it to them, contact me, and I'll try to integrate them as best as possible into the articles. Beyond that, I have no other ideas to suggest, but if you've got any, please share them with me.

Metal music is more problematic. I've already stated my views, so I'm not going to go too indepth into them. My concern is that a lot of the argument is possibly based on a misinterpretation of classification system like those used on Encyclopedia Metallum, as well as (as I see it) a misguied emphasis placed on the titles of the articles rather than their content. For example, those links provided recently in the talk page didn't actually help, because neither Encyclopedia Metallum or the FAQ provided make any sort of distinction beyond naming.

My approach is in maintaining the original article, heavy metal music, and the purpose it was created to fill. I don't think a metal music page is necessary (especially since to a great deal of people, the terms are interchangeable) but I have no objection to it existing if it fulfills a distinct purpose that does not detract from the original page.

Right now, aside from the genre list, both articles serve the same purpose; specifically, the history section. The material from the "the term heavy metal" and "Origins" (1960s and 1970s)" on the heavy metal music is summarized in a single paragraph in the "origins" section of metal music, although the summary proves ineffective as the more indepth description on the Heavy metal page is able to integrate sources and put them into context in order to effectively describe the origins of both the term and the genre. Also, the assertion that Black Sabbath is the first heavy metal band is rather tenious, and given that the term was applied to (and is still applied to) Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple since the early 70's (as evidenced by sources) it is factually incorrect. Additonally, both the sections "Undeground metal" and "Alternative metal" on the Heavy metal page attempt to cover the same ground the "Evolution" section on Metal music does, that topic being the emergence of a variety of subgenres. While the Heavy metal page section is much less detailed, keep in mind that metal subgenres did not really start to form until the early 80's, thus the heavy metal page has to cover more ground. Also, the intro paragraph to the History section on the Metal page is extremely POV ("like the term 'rock and roll' it is now gathering dust balls in the cupboard"). Without any sort of source, right now it seems like a personal declaration of the difference between the terms, and we can't have that sort of thing on an encyclopedia.

In order to remove ths redundancy, I think it would be best to simply remove the history and integrate it into the Heavy metal music article to fill out the evolution of subgenres. Right now the metal page works best in describing the subgenres (mainly because the List of hevay metal genres was merged into it not too long ago). I can personally merge the history sections without much effort. However, the subgenres might be a little too descriptive for what is essentially a list; their own articles are intended to describe and define them indepth anyways. The more that text can be reduced while still being informative, the better. Not just out of a redundancy concern, but out of space concerns (a few weeks ago that page was push the KB limit). Another suggestion is to simply rename the page "heavy metal subgenres", "Metal subgenres", "List of metal subgenres", etc. But then again, that would also remove the purpose of there being a page called metal music. I wouldn't mind, but others might mind and we still haven't sorted this whole thing out yet.

In the end, we are not the only ones working on Metal music. A large number of people have debated the topic since when I first signed up. Our best individual approach would be to provde sources on the topic in order to hopefully come to a conclusion. But until everyone else comes to an understanding between each other, I'm content to not edit either page too much beyond simple cleanup. Given the amount of passion attached to the subject I don't want to make any major changes that might cause an uproar, so I'd rather talk everything out before I do any major work on the page.

(Personally, I think I could merge them in less than an hour) WesleyDodds 05:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"It is vandalism and Meglomanical"

Hello! Why do you think "symphonic power metal" is better than "symphonic power metal"? If someone doesn't know what a power metal is, then he could easily see it directly on power metal. exe 11:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

last.fm template

Hi Leyasu. I just read your comment in the Last.fm TfD. I have a few comments:

1. "The template is essentially advertising. If you allow one template to advertise a site, then you must allow templates to advertise all sites of this manner."

How is it advertising? There are many other templates that follow the exact format such as IMDB and MusicBrainz templates. The data on Last.fm is made available for non-commercial uses under the Creative Commons license which means it's more free than data in sites such as IMDB. Did you read my responses to people in the discussion? Last.fm's data is valuable and rich for mining from a music sociology perspective. I am one such person using that data for my own personal research.

2. "Also, having looked at Last.Fm, i have found no reason why it should not simply be put under as an Ecternal Link like all websites pertaining to any band, artist or musical genre is."

It is put under external links. Did you look at the template and examine its usage on existing pages like this one or this one?

Would you be kind enough to review this information and consider changing your vote? — Mperry 22:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• After reading what you posted above, and what you posted on my talk page. No, i will not change my vote. Your comment is now also removed from my talk page. The template was voted for AFD and a majority vote will decide if its o be kept or deleted. If you dislike this, that is your own problem. I gave my reasons, and they are my own. You will not belittle or otherwise annoy me into changing my vote. Leyasu 01:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)—The preceding comment was moved from another page to retain the current conversation's thread.
  • Hi Leyasu. I am not belittling you. I am not trying to annoy you into changing your vote. I have no problem with the TfD proceedings. However, I was attempting to get you to participate in the discussion regarding the last.fm template. The notes that you left with your vote gave the impression that you had not done any research into the template. This also made the last sentence in your vote comment difficult to understand in the context presented. I had only wanted to make sure that you had considered that discussion and existing template usage when you had cast your vote. Also, I do not see what my talk page has to do with the template. If you respond, please respond here to keep the thread together, for the sake of clarity. Thank you. — Mperry 06:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)