Talk:Cheerleading

Cheerleading also catches links from Cheerleader, so if anyone's editing this page, they can include information about the actual people who cheerlead.

Internationalisation and History

This article presents the view that the concept of standing in front of a crowd of spectators and leading a cheer was first invented in America in modern times. It might merely be that the authors wished to portray the history, specifically, of American cheerleading, and neglected to use the word 'American' in the relevent titles.

I am adding a link to the article pertaining to Japanese Ōendan, as this is the form of cheer leading that I do, and thus know about. Unless you have studied Japanese culture in rather a lot of depth, and are thus already familiar with the word "Ōendan", you will need a link from this page to locate it, and there should be a link anyway, because it is cheerleading.

There might be a great many interesting and varied forms of cheerleading around the world, but they are not written about on this page. Ampitheatres, anyone?

---

The disambiguation is just a link, now, assuming it will become a page once editors from other countries discuss their own nation's cheerleading traditions.

"U.S. style cheerleading" might be better phrased with a more technical term?

Archives

Archive through 24 September 2007

Sport & POV

According to the Wikipedia article on Sport, Cheer qualifies. What we DO NOT need is a threatening comment in the article. This has the same effect as trolling (and attracts trolls). Yes, there is controversy about the sport-status of cheer. By and large, it is considered a sport, as referenced, and as per Wiki's own definitions. Think about it, too; Poker is now on ESPN...

I archived the extremely long talk page.

That's enough WikiDragoning and Being Bold for me for now.

VigilancePrime 16:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"...most quintessential of American sports"?

Now come on... I agree that Cheer is a sport. I (assistant) coached Cheer. Cheer is great. But much of this article sounds like it was written by a middle school squad through text messages. This page has a lot of good information, but needs a total rewrite to remove POV, better arrange reference locations (referencing paragraphs instead of words), and I don't think the photos are quite right either. While the VAST majority of Cheerers are from schools, only one photo is arguably a school cheer team (and the photo info says nothing about that).

This article is good, don't get me wrong, but needs a huge overhaul and, at a very start, toning down the POV-like statements.

VigilancePrime 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that italicized the word "sport." It is edits like this that make Cheerleaders and Cheer supporters look childish and un-sport-like. It gives a "whiney" appearance to Cheerers and Cheer itself. It reinforces the stereotype. That's the same reason I took out the threatening commented-out notation of "DO NOT CHANGE FROM 'SPORT' as proper citation which meets WP:RS has been provided. Violations will be considered deliberate vandalism."

In order for others to take Cheer seriously and professionally, we - everyone and anyone pushing for it to be taken seriously and professionally - must act serious and professional. Threats, extreme-POV, POV-pushing, and all the like do not help the cause, they hurt it instead. It's just like any other stereotype about race, gender, region, accent, etc. If you act like the stereotype, you justify it in the minds of people who see you doing it. The only way to effectively combat a stereotype is to prove it wrong in action; words do not work.

I'm not trying to be on a soapbox here, but please take to heart these words so we can make this article better, more informative, and more professional in look, phrasing, and tone. VigilancePrime 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it again. Please stop. If you're a proponent of Cheer, you're hurting the cause you support. If you're a vandal, I'll mark you as such. Either way, please stop. VigilancePrime 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"...most quintessential of American sports" is a DIRECT QUOTE used in the correct context from the cited Newsweek Source [6]. I have copy edited the sentence in a manner that hopefully expresses WP:NPOV better, while still maintaining the main idea of the article that this is take from. MsDivagin 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. If we're quoting (especially an opinion or a subjective observation/assessment), we need to indicate so, and you did that perfectly. That's much better now and I/we thank you. VigilancePrime 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit by 75.137.121.165: "Cheerleading is now officially considered a sport."

By whom? The status is hotly contested and a statement like this requires a credible 'official' reference. Also that sentence, if backed up, was ill-placed ruining the accuracy and flow of the history section. Cheerleading definitely wasn't a sport at its beginnings in the 19th Century and only began approaching becoming one in the last few decades.Thinkbui 00:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

cheerleading isn't in the Olympics thus it aint a sport. Since wiki is international it would have to be considered a sport by more than americans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.111.9 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an incredibly weak argument. For starters, one sport that isn't an Olympic sport is American football. Secondly, it's not just in the U.S. that people consider cheerleading a sport. Take the U.K. for example.Thinkbui 09:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think most people in the UK would scoff at the idea of cheerleading as a sport. Goldbringer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As a UK University cheerleader, I think you'll find that there is a large number of us in the UK that think cheerleading is a sport. I think you should also do some research into the growing number of cheerleaders and squads in the UK before you make off-handed comments like that. Check out the British Cheerleading Association (BCA) and Future Cheer websites. Both British cheerleading organisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheerKnight (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This article appears to me to be written by a group of cheerleaders who wish to prove their point by backing it up with "proof" by having Wikipedia say it is a sport. The reason that American Football isn't in the Olympics, is because, really no other country plays the game, NFL Europe can't compete with the USA, and that is it for football abroad, so simply if by having a competition between the two, we would simply see the NFL beat NFL Europe year after year. Until some "High Authority" rules it a sport, I believe then it is against Wikipedia policy to continue to have the page rule it as a sport, as this information is incorrect as it hasn't been ruled a sport by some High Authority.--ItsYourEmpire09 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources indicating that it is a sport. Without a reliable source indicating otherwise, the article will refer to it as such. --Yamla (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your sources fail to offer more than convincing proof that it is a sport. Where is a pro league of cheerleaders? I never hear about cheerleading in my local newspaper's sports section. And I never have seen a single news story on Cheerleaders winning the 'State Competition'. You have yet to prove your case, your sources are less than reliable to me. --ItsYourEmpire09 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works according to policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE and does not have to convince you of anything. Indeed, we have a policy against original research. --Yamla (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now this this debate has appeared to be resolved (unless there is another NPOV issue) I will remove the NPOV notice. 193.171.84.30 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there four different sources pointing out that this is a sport? Isn't this a bit excessive, making this article seem like it was written by the aforementioned girls with texting? One or two should suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.47.222 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos

First of all, to MsDivagin, I wanted to explain why I swapped the images (and if you disagree, let me know and we can work this; it's minor difference): Seeing as how youth cheer presents the vast number of cheerleaders (and skews the gender statistics depending on the 18-year-old line... 50%-ish of cheerers above and 98%-ish below being female IIRC), I felt that the lead photo would best be of a youth-aged group. Whether from a school, public organization's cheer group (as that image is), Pop Warner, etc., makes less of a difference. The intent in moving the college photo to the schools section was so that eventually that section could be further subdivided into a MS, HS, College section set and that photo used as the prime example of college. I'm moving them back with that reasoning in mind, and because, as a side note, I feel that the general first thought when one hears "Cheerleading" is of high school and that age-era rather than college and professional (which is only arguably cheer sometimes and places). [Side note, I think your work and edits are great! Don't think anything else of my comments or edits! You are a great, great help/contributor to this page and I/we thank you!!!]

On a wholly separate note, the TO-DO list for this page mentions photos. Are we serious editors (of vandal opinions I/we am/are not concerned) wanting more photos, better photos, or specific photos? If the latter of the three, specifically what do we want? I have a couple and have worked recently at Wiki on getting/producing photos (see my talk page for examples). With perhaps better discussions (and hence this section on this talk page) we can get those things accomplished and drastically upgrade this article!

VigilancePrime 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the compliment, cheerleading is my job, my love, my life and my passion...

2. I am a cheerleading industry insider...coached youth rec. league, high school, and allstars; judge nationally; teams competed at worlds and final destination-won there 4 times; am personally acquainted with the people and teams you see on ESPN and in American Cheerleader (some of them are on my speed dial!) So the perception of cheerleading as a whole is very important to me. But, as a Wikipedian, I do want to present a fair, accurate and unbiased portrayal of the topic.

3. The reason that I switched the photos is the way cheerleading as a whole is being represented in the Youth Cheer photo. Although the image of young girls with pom pons in hand cheering on there team is what may pop in to the general public's mind when thinking of cheerleading (the stereotype), in the current cheer world as a whole, it is far from the reality. The reality of cheerleading is that with more than 1.8 million all star cheerleaders out of a an estimated 3.8 million cheerleaders world wide, they are currently the largest segment of cheerleading and also the fastest growing in terms of number of participants worldwide. With the inclusion of extreme stunts and tosses, elite level tumbling skills and precision dancing all common place now, competitive cheerleadings' athleticism is the new face of cheerleading, and the driving force behind its gradual recognition as a sport. This athleticism has in turn trickled down to the sidelines of your local school or youth league. It is now common place to see some of these same stunts, tosses and tumbling on the sidelines at your local football game. I feel that the first image on the page needs to appropriately reflect this level of skill and athleticism, the age & type of team being show really don't matter as much to me. I don't want the first image that someone sees, who may have no background information on cheerleading at all, to reinforce the stereotype that the cheerleading community has fought so hard to separate itself from.
(In short...give me a lead-off picture of a bunch of girls showing athleticism i.e. stunting, tossing or tumbling and I'm there!) MsDivagin 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree! What we need is a good photo of youth cheerleaders in a formation or in action stunting. Something more than a cellphone camera or a Kodak disposable. A nice photo of youth cheerleaders in motion. I don't think the one necessarily reinforces negative aspects of cheer stereotypes, but I understand how a better, more active photo would be preferred. I don't have nearly the background or impetus to the be involved in the subject, but was put into the interest far more subtly. Anyway, the whole article has a long developmental road ahead of it as it stands now. VigilancePrime 01:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

why no mention of the cheerleader from Heroes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.111.9 (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Season 1 of Heroes was heavily billed under the tagline "Save the cheerleader, save the world," but the show really isn't about her being a cheerleader and more about her being one of a hand full having special powers and her background only happens to include cheerleading. At the same time, you could make the argument that because of that popular tagline and the identification of her being a cheerleader makes her worthy of a mention.Thinkbui 09:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bringitonmovieposter.jpg

Image:Bringitonmovieposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheerleading vs. Stripping

What about "sexiness" in cheerleading? At the very least in popular culture, but also in general the amount of clothing, and the type of moves, have become more sexually suggestive. Haven't they? See: The Replacements (film) --Dwarf Kirlston 16:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As we all (hopefully) know, TV is not reality. Not by a long shot.

NFHS has very specific rules about cheerleading clothing and how much skin is and is not allowed. No strippers in high school cheer. While All-Star programs are generally free to do what they wish, they still must have a program in which parents willingly let their children participate.

Colleges have rules but also more freedom, but comparing even college cheerers to strippers I think is highly argumentative and (intentionally?) inflammatory.

Now whether or not "professional" cheerleaders really even qualify as cheerleading is up for debate anyway. I don't think a comparison of "pro cheer" to strippers is warranted either even if you do consider pro sport sideline and dance teams to be cheerleaders.

But please don't compare real-life cheer to movies... especially something like that (whereas the Bring it On movies are at least somewhat realistic...somewhat).

VigilancePrime 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

TV and Reality are different articles, that is a fact.

pro sport sideline and dance teams - is there a wikipedia article on those? There should at least be a link to them.--Dwarf Kirlston 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

let me quote: "The cheerleaders release an annual swimsuit calendar." - from NFL Cheerleading - seems that the two, Cheerleading and "Sensual Dancing" are somewhat related, that some sexualization of cheerleading has happened - right?
I tried to find a mention of pro dance teams but was unable to. Could someone help me?
What about cheerleading in NBA? I found no mention of it in the NBA article
--Kiyarrllston 01:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

NFL Cheerleading

Regarding GMSbabe73's addition concerning the New England Colts cheerleading, I can not find any reference material that says the Colts program was ever located in New England, so I've commented the addition out. If it is true and you have a source to verify it, please add the reference.Thinkbui 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Found something. Baltimore Colts, not NE Colts.Thinkbui 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheerleading World Championships

Is this a big event? There is no mention about this competition in the article. -Lapinmies 14:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is THE cheerleading event! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.198.10 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Worlds doesnt mean anything if you are a collegiate cheerleader (This article may require differentiation between various competitions)... UCA/NCA college nationals would be THE holy grail for any college team... This would also be true for co-ed partner stunters. Psignosys (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Psignosys

Dangerous?

I remember a documentary that covered how dangerous the aerial maneuvers could be, especially in competitive cheering. If I remember correctly cheerleading had more very serious injuries than football. A section on that aspect by sombody with good sources would be great. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A breakdown of the type of injuries that happen and why they happen would be good here - as well as what coaches do to prevent them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma Rocket (talk • contribs) 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Competitive v. School

I believe that we need to make seperate pages for competitive and school cheer. They're different. I would, but I do not know enough about it.Dramaticaddict18923 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean "All-Star v. School Sponsored"? I agree that they are two different things, but based on my understanding of the two, I could only describe the differences in a few sentences and I personally feel there needs to be more than that to split the two categories. The way I see it is that they are fundamentally the same differing only the situations surrounding execution not unlike the difference between, say, boys' and girls' hockey (style of play, governing rules, etc). I don't know everything though. What are your thoughts of how each page should look if we split?Thinkbui (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever made that types of cheer section got the point. This is exactly what I was talking about. They got it, and did it well. Dramaticaddict18923 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I know about cheerleading, as my girlfriend is a school cheerleader. All-Star Cheerleading, or cheerleading for competetive gyms, consists of boys and girls while school cheerleading is mainly girls. Allstar is also more so like gymnastics, with less cheers; but more dances and stunts and tumbling. School cheerleaders, if good enough, will compete in similar competitions against other schools, but mainly spend their time cheering on the sidelines. - Tarheelz123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.245.190 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Psignosys (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Psignosys I dont agree with the differences in male/female count in different teams. In fact I have seen cases where the reverse to be true.

In terms of types of cheerleading there are many tiers:

School: These teams are supported by the institution (Middle School, High School, Collegiate, etc) The team's primary obligation is to support its mascot during various institutional events (as seen fit by the adminstration). They may not necesarily compete. Recreational: These are generally supported by the township (such as pop warner). Typically to support a football team. These teams generally do not compete (but are eligible to do so). Competitive: There are two major divisions which exist under this catagory. All-star and School Affiliated Divisions (predominantly HS and college in the US). All star divisions primarily consist of privately organized teams which have no affiliation with any school or sports team. School divisions have additional requirements such a proof of attendance, age (for collegiate teams), and in some competitions GPA.

Within each division there are various "levels" which cap the difficulty level of stunt/tumbling allowed to be executed on the floor. This give teams the choice to choose the level competitiveness to compete in. Psignosys (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Psignosys

Why are School and High School cheerleading separated? The highschool portion has several links which lead to varsity and it subsidiaries. Seems like a marketing scheme to me (I mean I loved being UCA staff but)... It needs to go Psignosys (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Psignosys

I agree that it's redundant, but after a couple of years on vandalism patrol on this page, I've lost motivation for copyeditting anything that long. See the "High School Cheerleading" topic below for more on this subject.Thinkbui (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging material in...

In an effort to address POV, I'm going to merge in the relevant content from Kristi Yamaoka and redirect that article. The repercussions of the incident are much more important than who it happened to (and there's no bio data in her article anyway). MSJapan (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Good addition, but way too much detail about only one incident. Please summarize.Thinkbui (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I don't think it can really get any shorter than that - the incident and results should be two different paragraphs. MSJapan (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

angles

angles wone 4 or 5 place in browrd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.138.130 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Gymnastics

While surely gymnastics is a part of cheerleading, why is this article a part of wikiproject gymnastics? Surely cheerleading, as a large, international sport, like gymnastics, should have it's own project. 193.171.84.30 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have never been satisfied with the Kristi Yamaoka article. It is definitely not a biographical article, and her notability is for being involved in a cheerleading accident. There's no more bio information in that article than there was three days after the incident two years ago, but it has plenty of usable information, some of which is already in the "Dangers of cheerleading" section (which I added per request). I'd like to therefore make the merge "official" by proposing that all the pertinent info from the Yamaoka article be merged into the Dangers of cheerleading section here. MSJapan (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're thinking it should be merged based upon WP:ONEEVENT? It really depends. I'm hardly a cheerleading enthusiast beyond school spirit and, well, thinking with a certain part of my anatomy, but if her name has become synonymous with the event much like Steve Bartman and the imfamous foul ball from 5 years ago, then a separate article could be justified, but the content on this page should be scaled back if that is the case. Either way it would have to depend on how central or marginal she is viewed by people in general, not just cheerleaders.Thinkbui (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The current level of Google hits seems to indicate biographical marginality - to be honest, there has been nothing written on her outside of accident reporting. For example, a reader of her article doesn't even get basic info about where she is from, and I'm pretty sure her DOB was extrapolated from her year in college as opposed to what any of the articles said. Her fall was obviously notable (plenty of sources, definite impact on sport) but she as an individual clearly isn't. MSJapan (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that she deserves to keep her own page. After her fall she has been noted as a famous cheerleader; its the equivalent of taking Tiger Woods and merging him into golf or Sherapova and merging her into Tennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarheelz123 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think those are equivalent. Using your examples, Sharapova and Woods are famous for their careers, but Yamaoka is only famous for her fall.

Let's start looking at it this way: Woods and Sharapova definitely deserve their own pages as their notability extends to people who aren't golf or tennis fans thanks to their respective resumés with continued high performance and achievements not to mention commercial advertising and other pop culture appearances. Does Yamaoka mean anything to people who aren't either fans of her or cheerleading and does she have something other than that fall on her resumé that would be well known among these people?Thinkbui (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been adding to the article Kristi Yamaoka which is now well-sourced and satisfactory in providing good coverage of this notable person. A merger is inappropriate as cheerleading is a huge topic and should not be overloaded with lots of detail about its many participants. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not believe the Kristi Yamaoka article yet passes WP:BLP1E, and thus I do not believe it should be kept. I would like to commend Colonel Warden for improving the Kristi Yamaoka article, but I believe it does not pass WP:BLP1E, because the information on it about Yamaoka's life outside the context of the fall is based upon one source that is offering trivial coverage. I am not trying to start another discussion about whether the Kristi Yamaoka article should be deleted. My intention behind this statement is merely to counter-argue the point Colonel Warden made above for the benefit of other people who are reading this section of the talk page. I would also like to state that I am sure that not all of the info on Kristi Yamaoka's article would be transfered here if a merger occured; only info relevant to the fall would be copied over. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Famous Cheerleaders section

It seems of late that anyone and everyone's been adding to the list of famous cheerleaders. While they may be noteworthy, I'm not sure very many of them are prominent enough to be placed here rather than just the List of cheerleaders page and this section is getting disproportionately lengthy compared to the rest of the article. I suggest that it be cleaned up removing most of them and adding them to the other page if they aren't already there.Thinkbui (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree I'm going to use the fact flag on those I can't find reference in their wiki articles.--Sultec (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked all the names against their articles and 23 out of 41 have no mention of cheerleading activities. I suggest waiting 5 days and then removing those unsourced names. Probably should put the whole section under the cheerleader list. --Sultec (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we should put the entire section under the list of cheerleaders, because even if we did find sources for every one of those people, that would be a lot of references that don’t really contribute to the main topic. --ITasteLikePaint (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A surprising number of names were referenced in The Guardian and About.com. I added references to those currently on the list but not all that the references had since this section is somewhat a waste of bandwidth. --Sultec (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section on famous cheerleaders and will add them to the separate list article. There seems to be so many that it just clutters up this article. It seems that any persons mentioned in this section should have more substantial coverage of their cheerleading contributions than just their name. --Sultec (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I haven’t been a contributor to Wikipedia for long, but I am already sick of everyday checking my watched pages list and seeing that somebody has had to revert vandalism on this article. I believe that this article is exactly the kind of article that the protection guidelines were designed for and therefore I move that it be placed under semi-protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITasteLikePaint (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Support I have placed a request for indefinite semiprotection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Cheerleading_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 --Sultec (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Request has been declined, apparently "not enough recent activity". Ah, well, gives us practice using the anti vandalism tools.--Sultec (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

High School Cheerleading

I disagree, I think that the article was fine as it was and that the added High School Cheerleading section is redundant as it doesn't say anything that you can't find in the article elsewhere. --ITasteLikePaint (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)