User talk:Lova Falk

Welcome to post messages here! My box is just for me. /Archive 1

Thank you

Just a quick note to show my appreciation for your recent vandal fighting, in particular reverting the blanking of my talk page. Cheers. Adambro 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! :) Lova Falk 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Job!

Great work you're doing on the article aphasia. If possible would you be able to do add (a sentence or so) something about paraphasia into aphasia... as i belive aphasia is a major group- and paraphasia is like a sub group. That is if it's appropriate. Would add it myself but I don't know much about both conditions (apart from the basics about paraphasia) so yeah, if u can that would be great :).

Keep up the great work! Cya. petze 14:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement! However, paraphasia is not in itself considered a subtype of aphasia, but a symptom that can occur in different subtypes of aphasia. Patients with Wernicke's aphasia, Transcortical sensory aphasia, Conduction aphasia, Anomic aphasia and Broca's aphasia can suffer from paraphasia. Cheers! :) Lova Falk 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Love

Oops! I guess it was a "Freudian" slip. ( hehe, get it?) :p It's been corrected and expanded. I really did (still do) appreciate your kindness when you reached out to me. Thank you. Hope all is well with you and your lovely family. :) For some time, I thought there was a bunch of malfunctioning robots with funny names (created by children as a school project) running Wikipedia, and out to piss me off for the fun of it. lol That is -- until... I realized, we are all real people behind the screen, and most of us have the best intentions. (Oh, I fancied up my user ID, so you may not recognise me, Jeeny) Jeannie ^* 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I recognize you! Did you notice that I sent you a mail last monday? I don't want you to feel obliged to answer, but it occurred to me that you might not have got it.

Yes, most of all have the best intentions. And actually, quite a few vandalists say "hi Nick", or "I love Stacey" and puerile as that may be, there's not much harm in that either. Cute user ID! Lova Falk 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to check on the mail. Yahoo did something to their software, or something (an upgrade, I think) and it logged me out, and I couldn't logged back in for a time because it didn't "recognize" me. (Oh, I changed my "cute" user ID, because I'm too old to be cute. Well, at least, as an online signature on Wikipee. :) Plus, it seems like I changed my identity (and feels strange, to me), even though that's my real first name. lol Let's see how this looks now. Jeeny^talk 19:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean - I'm fond of "Lova" and would not change it for my real name. Don't be bothered by cute though - you know, non-native speakers like me can use all kinds of sophisticated words but it's hard for us to know connotations of words like cute.

By the way, it's night in Sweden and I'm about to turn off my computer. Ciao! Lova Falk 20:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodnight, Lova. "Cute" was the correct term. I thought of it as such before you even commented on it, but still too "cute" for my age (and uncomfortable to use). G'nite. - Jeeny ^(talk) 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas on the page weak central coherence

Hi, i started a discussion on the page about weak central coherence. Could you please have a look at the discussion page, and say what you think about it? greets 157.193.108.159 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation! I will certainly have a look and say what I think, but not tonight though. Lova Falk 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for taking the time to improve Wikipedia articles using information that is mentioned at the reference desk. I made a citation to a physiology textbook that I like. I spend most of my wiki editing time at Wikiversity these days, so I do not get to help as much as I should at Wikipedia. :( --JWSchmidt 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's me who should be thanking you! The whole thing starts with me being confused and asking for help at the reference desk. When I get the picture, it's fun to add my newly gained understanding to an article. Lova Falk 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

pictures

thanks for sharing your collection of neuropsychology pictures...MisterSheik (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

synaptic transmission

i expanded your article becouse you didnt really tutch what i would concider some of the vital points on the subject, but i didnt do much, im just giving you a heads up so you could look over the more, in depth, user friendly description i put in, and make adjusments if you think there needed. Roy Stanley (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for taking the time to help create the article on Sluggish Cognitive Tempo. Without going into any boring details, I just wanted you to know your effort may have helped me very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.184.141 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary auditory cortex edit?

I am the user with the IP address 71.163.193.12, but I'm afraid I didn't make that edit at all. I don't even know what's going on, really; I'm not familiar with how IPs are supposed to work. Gatorman (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that the message was dated over a year ago? Did you have that IP address in May 2008? (I'm responding because Lova hasn't edited in over a month and might not be watching.) Looie496 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lova is working her beautiful butt off and has hardly any time left for Wonderful Wikipedia. And Gatorman, I have no clue about your IP number. User 71.163.193.12 only made one vandalous contribution. Maybe a visitor who borrowed your computer? Or a wireless router that a neighbour used to connect with the internet? Lova Falk (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights. You seem to know what you're doing, but you might find Twinkle helpful for issuing warnings. A few things to remember:

• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism (though you can revert your own edits if you screw up)
• Rollback doesn't give you any advanced status
• Misuse of it can lead to its removal by any admin
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• To get a feel for how the tool works, have a read of WP:RBK and Help:Reverting

If you have any questions, just let me know. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

An Award!

User:QwerpQwertus/The Puzzle Piece Award

You've been rewarded the Wiki Puzzle Piece Award - Puzzle Piece Nine! ~ QwerpQwertus ------------------ Award One

PS: Try awarding one to someone! ~QwerpQwertus·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 06:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Lazy"!

Because I'm too lazy to stop and go outside! TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh... Newton's law of inertia! Lova Falk talk 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

Just looking over the work you're doing on a range of psychology articles. Great stuff! There aren't nearly enough people who know about psychology on Wikipedia. Best (informal) wishes to you, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh thank you!! Lova Falk talk 16:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Good sourcing on your latest edit on Flynn effect.

Hi, Lova, I was glad to see the edit you did just now on the Flynn effect article. That section still needs more work, but that corrects an unsourced statement. You were kind to cheer on my efforts to post more sources on several of the psychology articles. Reading your talk page here, I see you are familiar with the literature, and I will appreciate your comments on the sources I post once I get done Wikipedia formatting them and posting them to various articles to which they relate. I will keep an eye on your edits, and I hope you will keep an eye on mine, in the interest of better V and better NPOV. I will appreciate the opportunity to learn from you. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and I will certainly keep an eye on you! Lova Falk talk 17:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Nice to have a new contributor on Wiki psychology articles. It is a generally neglected part of Wikipedia and could do with quite a lot of work. You might like to list your name as a psychology contributor at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology#Participants. My user page User:Penbat lists the psychology articles I am most interested in. If you are interested in working on any of those articles you may be interested in my views of how they can be improved. --Penbat (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re unbiased IQ tests...

Thank YOU!. I'm encouraged. I've posted a bit more.

Keep up the good work. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for solving my dilemna

I couldn't think of a good title for my vigilance article. You've done that, and made some fine edits as well. Thanks for all your efforts in support of Wikipedia.
Kind Regards,

John Ironwraith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.183.63.33 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah thank you too! Lova Falk talk 05:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Lova Falk. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

dyslexia , developmental dyslexia, and alexia

Hi Lova

I think there is a need for a new article called "Dyslexia" which acknowledges the existenve of both developmental dyslexia and alexia (acquired dyslexia). This would mean 3 articles in place of the current 2. The first question is how do we best set about converting the current Dyslexia article to a new "Developmental Dyslexia" article which would be the best match for the existing content. The big problem for me previously has been the lack of research which provides accurate definitions of the various subtypes of Alexia, well more about me being able to find it. I think the problem had been that the bulk of Alexia research had been done case by case, and it is only recently that the technology and understanding has come together to enable researchers to change the research model based on the the types of lesion etc and to see the effects of the various lesions in various areas of the brain. I hope i am making some sort of sense. dolfrog (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog! I'm sorry but I don't see the need of a third dyslexia article at all. The present article Dyslexia starts with the tag: This article is about developmental dyslexia. For acquired dyslexia, see Alexia (acquired dyslexia). There is also the Category:Dyslexia which has a lot of dyslexia articles. Furthermore, I don't have any Alexia research articles at hand, so I can't help you with those either. However, both articles are on my watchlist and I'll help editing if needed. Lova Falk talk 06:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lova I thought you might like to have a look at an online collection alexia research papers dolfrog (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Lova Falk talk 14:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MBTI

Step III - is there a third-party reference to this being published (book review etc.)?Martinlc (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know! I just asked the editor wrote this if s/he could give a reference, so maybe it'll show up. Lova Falk talk 16:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Invite to join Wiki Med

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).

I have seen that you edit articles which have a medical theme and thought that you might be interested in joining and watch listing the Wiki Med project. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation! However, I'm not joining any projects just now - but I might consider it later. :) Lova Falk talk 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The blockquote in Meditation was a direct quote!

Hi Love, thanks for your work on the meditation article. I noticed you changed the blockquote, which was cited in its entirety to page 49 of the Perez-De-Albeniz et al paper. You substituted the full reference for the Kutz reference. I agree that the previous quotation left the Kutz reference (and the other where you inserted a "specify" request) as undesirable loose ends. However, in line with your own recent point about being faithful to properly representing quotations, it doesn't seem desirable to me to change the quote itself (which would seemingly leave the Perez-de-Albeniz paper misquoted, since quotes are generally expected to be literal; at minimum, perhaps we should put a notation in the footnote, stating that this was a reference cited by Perez-de-Albeniz et al). Instead, my impulse would be just to replace the loose-end quotes with ellipses. We have already cited the entire blockquote to the Perez-de-Albeniz paper, so no further citation is required.

BTW, FYI (since I have the Perez-de-Albeniz paper), the Teasdale et al is listed in their reference section as: TEASDALE, J.D., SEGAL, Z. & WILLIAMS, M.G. (1995). How does cognitive therapy prevent depressive relapse and why should attentional control (mindfulness) training help? Behaviour Research Therapy, 33, pp. 25-39. And the other Kutz paper cited by Perez-de-Albeniz (Kutz, 1985b) was: KUTZ, I., LESERMAN, J., DORRINGTON, C., MORRISON, C.H., BORYSENKO, J. & BENSON, H. (1985b). Meditation as an adjunct to psychotherapy, an outcome study, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics, 43, pp. 209± 218.However, as per my previous argument, I think we should just replace it to ellipses.

Frankly, I suspect we may want to replace this entire blockquote before long, as per earlier discussion... though I'm not advocating that we replace it right now. -- Health Researcher (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

PS I see we just "crossed in the mail" -- you were writing on my talk page as I was writing on yours. I still recommend just using the ellipses. Less confusing, and people who reeeeely want more can track down the Perez-de-Albeniz article. Best regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

meditation

Thanks for editing my edits, I agree with what you changed back, and probably was just a little too ready to edit or something.

This section on meditation that you reverted me edit for, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meditation&diff=next&oldid=369143271 I found a little... um, like upsetting, just because it didn't include a diverse spectrum of possible methods of meditation, including, a very common example just off the top of my head, metta meditation, where one self-induces a state of universal compassion. This state clearly does not fit within either 'concentrative' nor 'mindfulness' meditation categories.

This article from 2007, a review of current scientific literature on meditation practices, http://compassion.stanford.edu/pdf/Dunne_Ch%2019%20Lutz%20Dunne%20Davidson-1.pdf in a section entitled, "'Defining Meditation'", "...notes the need for a more precise understanding of meditation as a scientific explanandum. Arguing for the importance of distinguishing the particularities of various traditions, the section presents the theory of meditation from the paradigmatic perspective of Buddhism, and it discusses the difficulties encountered when working with such theories..."

Granted that this review I mention is from 2007, and there might've been some progress in the meanwhile, and certainly there are some similarities between meditation practices so that we might say that some more specific and local practices of meditation all train the ability to concentrate and do about the same thing psychologically, however, the belief that all, "the various techniques of meditation are often classified by... concentration meditation... mindfulness meditation," is just plain incorrect :?

I should get back to work for now. Also, I left a note under the Talk page, and will certainly be back in a bit to continue to help out. I would like to leave the door open to talking about different types of meditation, even just shamatha and vipassana categories have a signficant role in talking about similarities across different Buddhist religious traditions, for example. If you have any ideas about it or would like me to do anything with it then let me know how I can help out, I know some about meditation and practice shamatha myself, which further makes me want to shed light on the good practice itself.

Also, I copied the bit I quoted to you above about 'Defining Meditation' to the meditation article as well, yet didn't reference the article like Wikipedians should I guess, so if you want to then it's there to do. Thanks for your help and hopefully we can make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I understand that you get upset. The thing is, the sentence starts with "Reviews have noted that" and then it is followed by a quote. Now, however much you think that this is not correct, this is what the reference says and therefore you cannot just change it because you know better, or because you know more. Wikipedia is not about the truth! If you want to change a referenced statement, you have to have another reference that confirms the change. So that is why I undid your edit. I hope you understand. Lova Falk talk 08:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. As part of a general addition and change I did the other night on that page, I changed the same part from, "Reviews have noted that in the Western meditation literature, the various techniques of meditation are often classified by the...[followed by blockquote]," to, "Oftentimes, in the West, meditation is classified in two broad categories, so noted in the following excerpt," in response to the reference that editor had cited, at the end of his blockquote, "^ The full quote from Bond, Ospina et al (2009, p. 130) reads: "The differences and similarities among these techniques is often explained in the Western meditation literature in terms of the direction of mental attention (Koshikawa & Ichii, 1996; Naranjo, 1971; Orenstein, 1971): A practitioner can focus intensively on one particular object (so-called concentrative mediation), on all mental events that enter the field of awareness (so-called mindfulness meditation), or both specific focal points and the field of awareness (Orenstein, 1971)."

I think that the sentence is made more clear this way, since he only cites one review, which is a meta-analysis of the literature available at that time, but then wrote that "Reviews have noted..." which could mean that he has multiple sources or that he is quoting from one meta-review. I don't think this is perfect, as there are a lot of other opinions which conflict with this one, namely the two under the 'Definitions' section immediately preceding the 'Similarities' section where this whole quote we're writing about is found. Maybe this could be pointed out more clearly, or the two put more closely together. There was also a somewhat reaction directly underneath this quote, "Other typologies have been proposed..." but without citations, so I hope this change will alleviate concerns that the definition was pigeon holing. Plus the change more accurately reflects the material presented in the reference. A question I had was if it should be maybe, 'article' rather than 'excerpt' in the quote, "Oftentimes, in the West, meditation is classified in two broad categories, so noted in the following excerpt,". What do you think?--makeswell 02:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry Makeswell, I have been busy with other things and Meditation has disappeared from my focus of interest just now. Lova Falk talk 08:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Adoption article

Thanks for all your work today on the adoption article.Tobit2 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Lova Falk talk 08:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL

:D Well, who knows nowadays.  – Tommy [message] 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Special education

Hi Lova,

I'd love to have you read Special education#Setting and tell me what you think about it. The article needs to provide a general overview that applies to just about everyone (at least in developed countries), but we've got constant pressure to remove any and all terms or concepts that aren't immediately familiar to the average resident of the UK (that is, people that aren't educators, psychologists, or parents of special needs kids). Typically, the demand is that we not provide any overview at all, and turn the article into a "Special education by country" article.

There have been a lot of changes recently, including some by a permabanned sock. I'd love to have an outside view from someone who isn't in either the USA or the UK. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation! I just read the section and I think it is really good to have this overview. A "Special education by country" article would be quite horrible.

However, the section does not make clear how regular inclusion and mainstreaming differ. Apart from that, all settings are known and practiced in Sweden, and there is only one minor detail that might be different. In the sentence "Teacher aides are assigned to help the children with special needs progress", are remedial teachers seen as teacher aides? Because sometimes in Sweden it would be a remedial teacher who helps the special need child. Lova Falk talk 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

Just to check my terminology: In a typical government-run American school, a 'teacher's aide' is often a person with little or no specific training (like a child care provider). A teacher has finished university and been licensed or certified by the state. A special education teacher (is that the same as 'remedial teacher'?) is a certified teacher who has specialized in educating people with special needs (as opposed to, say, teaching science or literature).

I believe that American schools do both. A teacher's aide might help with simple or non-instructional tasks (helping the student use the toilet, taking notes for a student who can't write quickly, making sure an autistic child doesn't run away) in the background. However, in some cases, especially if more skill is needed, a certified special education teacher might be assigned to a student. In that case, you might have two teachers in the same classroom (one with the majority of the class, and the other with one or more special needs students). I believe it's more common, though, for the students to be sent to the special education teacher than for the teacher to come to them. This lets the special teacher efficiently see several similar students at the same time, even if they're in different classrooms the rest of the day.

A previous version of that paragraph said, "Under full inclusion, by contrast, students classified as having special needs remain in general classrooms virtually all the time.[15] Related services are provided via "push in," meaning that professionals enter the classroom and deliver assistance there.[15] However, full inclusion is a controversial practice, and it is not widely applied.[16][17][18]" Does that sound like a better description from your perspective? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no time right now but I'll get back to you tomorrow! Lova Falk talk 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have been busy with other things. Yes, when I wrote "remedial teacher" I meant "special education teacher" in exactly the same way as you describe it. And no, I don't think the "push in" version is better. I have tried to find some English sources for the Swedish situation, but I could not find any good ones. And I still don't understand the difference between mainstreaming and regular inclusion... Lova Falk talk 08:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lova,

Sorry about the delay in replying; we had to dispose of a sock.

Depending on the sources you look at, there are two differences between mainstreaming and inclusion: One is philosophical, and the other is trivial.

The trivial difference is (as far as I know) US-specific: If the child attends an ordinary school, but spends less than 50% of the school day with non-disabled students, then the child is recorded as "mainstreamed". If the child attends an ordinary school, but spends more than 50% of the school day with non-disabled students, then the child is recorded as "included". Obviously, the difference between 49% and 51% is trivial, but I suppose that if you're going to use categories to track this (rather than having schools report "Johnny: 24% of time in special education, 76% of time in general education. Susie: 34% of day in special education..."), then you have to draw the line somewhere.

The philosophical difference is this: A proponent of mainstreaming believes that students with special needs (like Down syndrome) properly "belong" to the special education program, but they can "earn" the right to attend ordinary classes (by behaving well and being successful at the same work that the typically developing children are doing). A proponent of inclusion (especially the most militant "full inclusion" variants) believes that students with special needs properly "belong" to the ordinary classroom, and should never be sent to a special classroom (without a really, really good reason for it).

Sources in languages other than English are usually acceptable. Perhaps you'd consider (whenever you have some time) providing a brief outline of the Swedish system at Special_education#Europe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation! I was on a short holiday so not able to answer you earlier. I can write a few lines about the Swedish system, sometimes in the near future. Lova Falk talk 08:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Argument from ignorance

Hello,

I'm thinking about replacing the existing article with this. I invite and welcome your thoughts.

Agenzen (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us

Should I undo the edit then?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I did it! :) Lova Falk talk 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Penbat/Index of psychology articles is a monster job

It was full of so much garbage. Hopefully i will finish with it in a few days. It is amazing that this piece of junk was allowed to be here. --Penbat (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Monster job is the correct expression. You did a fantastic job, and I'm sorry I didn't contribute more! Lova Falk talk 07:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You may have noticed that i have put it up for deletion. I decided that it is just not viable inspite of all my efforts and a redirect makes more sense. Please express your view on the AFD. --Penbat (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen it. I !voted for a redirect. I had no idea this list of psychology topics even existed. Very brave of you to put the page up for deletion after all your efforts. Lova Falk talk 08:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just leave it in your user space? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for advice, format

in Parasitic oscillations.

--Zutam (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Lova Falk talk 13:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mnemonic

Hello, in response to your message: I didn't have much concrete advice to give on the article talk page, but I tagged mnemonic for cleanup because of

• incongruent article structure, top level sections with non-obvious titles
• second top level section called "Other mnemonic systems" only consists of a list
• section on assembly mnemonics in the middle of the article is disconnected from the rest of the article
• caps, bold used for emphasis
• other copyediting needed, etc

Thanks, – Acdx (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for welcome-in!Jacobisq (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're really welcome! :) Lova Falk talk 06:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

HI

YOU DIDN'T REMOVE THE POST THAT I POSTED ABOUT ASHKENAZI JEWS, I REMOVED IT, SO WHY R U SENDING ME AN ERROR MESSAGE SAYING YOU REMOVED IT???!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! I REMOVED IT MYSELF!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!