User talk:Yngvadottir

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Archive of my Did You Knows

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	A little digital material culture for your excellent ongoing work on Anthropomorphic wooden cult figurines of Central and Northern Europe. I really appreciate the work that you do here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Awww, thank you! I just asked an archeologist to check it in case I mucked anything up ... Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's not the easiest topic to dive into! It seems most of the information is pretty scattered.

By the way, come December I intend to get the Odin article up and running. I would love to rewrite the Frigg article at the same time. Your assistance is always welcome.

I may also rewrite the witchcraft article as soon as time permits as well, if you're interested. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I keep meaning to go back to that Odin rewrite ... I think Frigg would be easier, but too much for me, since I am obviously overextended, and witchcraft way, way too much :-) I bowed out of mucking about with hamr as invited to by Drmies on grounds of conflict of interest, and that aspect is also very much on my mind. But mainly, every time I turn around I see another article we are lacking, and meanwhile I really must rewrite Dís even if I have to break into a decent academic library to get that Motz article. Gah! ... OK. I will see what I can do re: Odin. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I know how it goes, no worries. :) By the way, there's a reconstructed sacrificial bog that features a few reconstructed wooden figures at Land of Legends (Sagnlandet Lejre) near Roskilde in Denmark. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, really?! Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep! Last I was there it was quite a sensory experience: a plaque about Nerthus, a few rotting, fly-attracting horse heads on beams, and a bunch of crying children. Surreal. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Activity tracker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of sharing via [[social media]] and resulting rivalry.<ref name=Wired/><ref name=CNET/><ref>G. F., [http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/quantified-self "Quantified self: Fit, fit, hooray!",

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ref>[[Franz Josef Worstbrock]], [http://www.jstor.org/stable/20658954 "Mitteilung des Herausgebers]], ''Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur'' 126 (1997) 494 {{de icon}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

http://reftag.appspot.com/ :-) Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Old grad school habits die hard, I just type it all in '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

hey

hey.

Koy Hoffman (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Awwwwwwwww. Thanks :-) I'm going to reply on your talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Yea. It's what I do. You desrve it since You were the only one nice to me so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

My Newsletter

Hey, I've made a little section on my user page devoted to something called: Wikipedia: In the eyes of a Wikipedian. It's a newsletter with me describing hat it's like to be here. The first one is done, So you should read it!--Koy Hoffman (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but don't go overboard with it. Remember, we're not a blog. Have you found any refs yet for that Wii hack thing? (And by the way I have to go to bed. Complicated schedule. I'll be back in a few hours, when I have something I have to do off-wiki but will double-task here.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthropomorphic wooden cult figurines of Central and Northern Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sternberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Indeed Norse deties are complex, but are Greek and Roman deties not? I don't see why the ancient Mediterranean religions can have infoboxes for their deties if the same thing is rejected for Norse deties. Infoboxes can give you a quick understanding of a character (or in this case, a god) without forcing you to read a massive amount of text. I think that the introduction of infoboxes like I tried to do would make the articles easier to understand? Ninja of Tao (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC+1)

The introduction is not "massive amounts of text" and this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. Wikilinks, and explanations later in the article, serve to assist the reader. I have no opinion on articles about Greco-Roman deities; they are written and maintained primarily by those with expertise in the area, and there are active wikiprojects there, which presumably decided to use infoboxes. There is a very recent ArbCom case on infobox addition, which affirmed the principle that the projects and those maintaining particular articles should decide whether to implement infoboxes. In the case of Thor, the article was judged a Good Article without an infobox, and the addition of one was previously reverted on Thor and other articles, probably including Odin (I'm not sure, I don't have that one watchlisted). My personal stance on infoboxes is that they are useful for scientific-technical topics - species, which is where they were first developed, and ships, where the technical specifications and the career under different names and flags are usefully tabulated in a standard format, are two examples - and traditional in certain other kinds of articles, such as films, but forcing a second, briefer summary of arts topics often leads to invidious decisions and has no commensurate benefit to the reader (as opposed to to companies trawling us for machine-readable data). You are welcome to open a talk page discussion of the issue at Talk:Thor and Talk:Odin, but there's where I am coming from. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(watching) You summary on the arb case is a bit too simple: it resulted in that you as an author get protection from the arbs if you don't want an infobox, but not if you want one. (See my talk.) I can't add an infobox to an article where I am the main contributor, does it make sense? Andy can't even add an infobox to his own articles, how is that? My personal stance on infoboxes is that a minimum box telling a reader what an article is about helps a random reader of any article. (Example Odin: simply say "North mythological figure" on top of the pic which suggests that it is an article about a painting otherwise.) This is not the same as mandating it. My latest GA about a work of art comes with an infobox, another one was even approved as GA by a sceptic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I personally strongly oppose the use of infoboxes for articles such as those about deities. They're frequently overly simplifying and misleading. Anything the infobox can provide will be provided in the opening paragraphs of the article itself. Mineral classifications, yes; abstract figures over long periods of time, no. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, your liking for infoboxes is well known although inexplicable to me. If you look through the articles I have created and listed on my user page, you will see that some - including the first, which was a bio - have infoboxes. I submit that a work of art is in no way comparable to a deity, least of all to a deity in a religion where the number of recorded sobriquets/alternate names/heiti serves as a rough indication of importance, i.e., where complexity was valued. Infoboxes are by their nature reductive; reducing Thor or Odin to any set of "god of" formulations is already highly misleading (and anachronistic; this is a tendency born out of modern comparative and functional analyses), and as such the further reduction desirable for an infobox is retrograde. (Perhaps this also makes it clearer why I hope Richard Wagner never gets crammed into an infobox, but that's up to those who maintain his article). But you and I also disagree on the fundamentals of the benefits of infoboxes, so it's not surprising that we come at this from different angles. I thought you deserved a specific response here; if I could find an appropriate infobox userbox I would add it to my user page, but I believe that to be another case of reduction to the available space being not useful :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Perhaps our stance is not quite as different as you think. Did you read how I came from opposing infoboxes to liking? Did you see my talk, Identitybox? Did you see that about Odin, I would not even say "God of ..." but only something like "North mythological figure"? I compare an infobox to a book cover, - the book is not "crammed" into it but the "cover" shows something essential about it. The random reader of an article who perhaps arrived there by some search should get info about the topic of the article + key facts like time and location, as a theatre program tells you where and when an action takes place. The excitement against such a thing is inexplicable to me, but I respect it. Wagner is past, but we will celebrate Verdi's birthday soon. - I don't use userboxes, the one exception is on my talk, for (a) reason ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This book cover analogy sums it up very nicely because I think that even complex articles can have their key facts listed in a table without being crammed or reduced to a machine-readable format. Not to mention the editorial inconsequence of having some articles with such a box while other probably featured articles don't make use of this tool at all. So, like Gerda I can't really understand the profound aversion against infoboxes that some users displayed in the arbcom case and elsewhere. But then I do use userboxes like this one. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything but ... I think it's a bad analogy. The person is already looking at the article, whereas the cover encloses the book. The text of the article starts with a lede, which serves to introduce the topic and set it in context. The best argument for infoboxes, in my opinion, is as a collection and standardised tabulation of technical specifications and other details - dates, engine data, lists of people involved, the stack of classifications for a species, the genres for a band or a song, the reissues for a recording. Stuff that doesn't fit well in prose and is clearer at a glance. Some readers read them first (especially I suspect those educated in the US system, where textbooks often have box summaries at the start of segments), some refer back to them to set a particular segment of the article in context. But book covers do none of these things (except where the illustration and/or the publisher identifies the genre; I used to look on the library shelves for the yellow covers of Gollancz books because they indicated good science fiction) and the article intro or lede paragraph in most cases will make what the reader needs to know at the outset much clearer. So no, I do fundamentally disagree. In my view the case for infoboxes from the reader's point of view depends to a huge extent on the category of article. And I don't see any benefit to standardisation: it makes us look more like a textbook and it leads to misapplication of things that suit one kind of article but not another. (We already see this with the generalisation of sectioning as an ideal; in a short article that just breaks things up, making the article look too short, and obscures connections; and with citation templates, which emphasize what in some types of articles may not be the main piece of information and make it hard to fit in relevant information - such as what pages an article is found on as well as what page the particular piece of information is found on; exact status of revised versions/translations; updated versions and new headlines of news stories; and type of publication - exhibition catalogue, catalogue raisonnée, pamphlet). Article length is supposed to be commensurate with notability, with allowance for additional explanation being required for some topics (several Norse-topic articles are tagged as being written at too expert a level); I see infoboxes as a similar issue. And even publishers these days do not standardise their covers as they once did! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Different edit war, I don't want to revert again, perhaps admin help is needed? - I will reply to the above later, possibly tomorrow, guess what, I want to write articles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, me too - and not collections of data for Google et al., which may be the elephant in the room. I had a look at the reverting on that user talk and others seem to be involved, don't worry :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

My data are for everybody who cares, which includes "Google et all". Search for Rigoletto on Google, an infobox will tell you as the first character Sparafucile. I wish we had a infobox they could use, to improve. - Back to the "book cover" image: yes, a reader is already in the book. I would still like to show him at a glance what that book is about. Look at L'Arianna. A female name, could be a dancer, a poem, you name it. The text then helps you to a translation of that name, a catalogue number with an abbreviation that you can look up, a composition time (Ah! it's a composition), then "opera", then a country and finally the composer. The identitybox gives him "opera" and the composer right away. Perhaps join the linked discussion on my talk, where I feel unrestricted. (Did you know: I may offer only two comments to an infobox discussion on a given article? The fathomless wisdom of our arbs ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

All of that information, even the number, is in the well written first sentence of the lede: "L'Arianna (English: Ariadne) (SV 291), composed in 1607–08, was the second opera by the Italian composer Claudio Monteverdi." That's where I expect a reader to look - and a trolling bot too! (By the way, it has L' at the start to distinguish it from "a female name", right? I wouldn't expect all readers to notice that, but opera fans, yes.) As I say, my impression is that infoboxes are justifiable for lists of stuff like taxa, engine specs, name changes and dates - footballers' career stats too - but otherwise they just interpose a "Look at me instead of the article!" The picture is essentially neutral, except that infoboxes often require a smaller pic or put stuff ahead of the pic, like two versions of the name. I don't like this apparatus in books except for technical subjects, it doesn't look encyclopedic to me, it looks like a textbook for 10-year-olds, and as a reader I automatically start reading at the first line of text. So we really do have entirely different expectations, as I have been saying. I do think the data mining thing is the elephant in the room, because I for one can see absolutely no justification for making it easier for companies to scrape our work and digest it so they can monetise it. They have algorithms to derive data, let them do that; pre-digesting our writing into pap they will find easier is an insult to everyone who has worked hard to write accessible, informative, and nuanced articles. This is a project to write an encyclopedia. Its being on the internet is the publication vehicle, it does not mean we have to kowtow to internet companies. So I am afraid I find neither argument justifiable and the pushing of infoboxes on articles that are not of those types where they are de rigueur - ships, football players, species, etc. - yes inexplicable and yes based on assumptions I do not share. I use them on a case-by-case basis and am very much saddened by the push to have them on all articles. As such, no I won't clutter up your talk page with my point of view on the issue; there it is. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. I saw your message about the list being nominated for deletion. Now, I'm probably not going to cast my opinion on whether it should be deleted or not, however, I am not really experienced with the deletion process on Wikipedia. The reason I bring this up is because a few days ago I came across Synthesizers.com. It really doesn't look like it deserves a page of its own but I don't know how to start an AfD. Could you look at it and give me your thoughts on it? GamerPro64 18:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does look like a page created by someone affiliated with the company that does not demonstrate notability. But I'd have to search for sources to see whether there are any; sometimes people simply don't realize they are needed. I will poke around and maybe tag the article. Let me encourage you to participate at the deletion discussion; the issue really is whether there are sources independent of Channel Awesome itself. The info about the deletion process - including how to nominate an article, what to consider first, and guidelines for posting in AfDs - is here, and I notified you because you had contributed substantially to the article, so you have every right to express an opinion and it would in fact be good for as many people as possible who know the topic and the field to do so. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for your prompt response. Amandajm (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In case you don't like cupcakes.......

A cheeseburger for you!

Thank you for prompt response on Gehry! Amandajm (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, dinner and dessert! Om nom nom nom. You're welcome :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

I know a very little about wikidata and to say the truth I have enough creating articles and maintenance of +1500 articles: I did notice of some tools which created sections or add interwikis on wikidata, this is the main reason that I add at least one interwiki in each article and leaving the work to the bots. Having a 18 months baby limited my time around! p/s. Yngvadóttir = Yngvi's daughter, nice. Are you related to ásatrú or Norse/Viking articles? I am speaker/lagman of my community and proud to create the biggest documentary resources about Norse society, vikings, kings, warriors, battles, sagas, heathenry, Prussian/Baltic heathen history in Spanish wikipedia. I'm actually trying to complete the articles concerning Þáttr, too many red links in the beginning but very few left right now! ;) Take care. --Gilwellian (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No word on identities, but bravo for what you're doing :-) I understand lack of time, but Wikidata is just as quick as ading an interwiki the old way - once you have registered your username there (for some reason it's not automatic as it is with other Wikipedias). Also, please include in your edit summary that you translated the article from en.wikipedia when you create a new one on es. by doing that - attribution requirement. Thanks again! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Karl Schlabow

Thank you for translating the article ;-) --Bullenwächter (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was yours! You're very welcome :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Yea, I made some of these, So I thought you might want one but in case you don't want that............. Koy Hoffman (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just feeling peckish after work :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A portal gun for you!

	Portal Gun Award
	Yes. Take it. Go have fun with it. Sorry. can't find the picture. Koy Hoffman (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL what's a portal gun? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes.

Do you like getting sent these things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

in moderation :-D Have you found something you can write about that you have sources for? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nah.

Not really but i'm working on it and btw a portal gun is a gun that shoots portals. It's from a video game :D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

#3

My third newsletter is out if u wanna check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikicat

This guys name is Wikicat. Don't eat him.

Koy Hoffman (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Aww, poor little mite. I'm not that hungry, but I should probably keep that giant centipede away from him :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

AAAAHHHH!!!!!

OMG A GIANT CENTIPED!!!! I wish i got a wikilove message on my talkpage..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks fer the puppy! I'll name him........ Cake......... Yes! Cake! You be sure to take good care of Wikicat, K? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You're Epic!

	Epic Award
	You get this for being so awesome to me! Koy Hoffman (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Aw thanks :-) [blushes horribly] Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great Job!

Are this nice to everyone, BVecause you've helped me here so far, And I think I finally have an article to write about btw! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Burchard Precht

Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

NSA

I noticed you have edited the article on the nsa restoring it to its original definition, however the organisation violates US law, and by definition is a criminal organisation and this cannot be shown to be a personal opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA . Yours truly and to avoid the fire caused by ignorance (arctictothpastArctictothpast (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC))

(I moved this from the top to where new threads go and gave it a heading.) Hi Arctictothpast: I'm going to put a welcome template on your user talk page, because you need to do some reading about Wikipedia. This is a general-readership encyclopedia. As such, it contains neutrally worded information from reliable sources and does not reflect any political point of view; at the most it reports on the points of view held by individuals and groups. It isn't the business of such an encyclopedia to interpret the law of any country on any topic. You are welcome to submit sources on Talk:National Security Agency in support of an argument that the organization has been stated by reliable authorities to be in violation of US law, and that Wikipedia should therefore say this. But first, read up on the five pillars, especially verifiability and reliable sources. We aim to report what others have written, in a factual, neutral way; we can't do original research (WP:OR) even if it seems obvious, and we can't use Wikipedia itself as a reference. All of this follows from the nature of the project; it isn't a place to advocate a political point of view of any kind, no matter how deeply held, or right any kind of wrong. So, as I say, I'll put a welcome template with links on your user talk page to help you to understand. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

First class facilities of the RMS Titanic

Hi I was wondering if you'd be interested in translating this from French wikipedia which has an FA on it? Obviously it would be gradual but looks fascinating.If not, no worries!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Tempting, and I may look again later, but right now I do have a number of things stacked (mostly unplanned) and it already looks good. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Svipdagr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Bellows (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Murphy in Aurora, Ontario

Thanks for adding that reference back. Apparently, I had a brain cramp there. PKT(alk) 15:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for feed-back on MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident

Hi, Could you please give feed-back on the tags ("Article for Deletion" and "Notability") opened by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom pertaining to this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident? These tags as well as two other tags that this same user has placed in the article (4 in total) are resulting in a very poor layout of the article. So, can you kindly tell me how to go about to remove it (if the claims of the other user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom are misplaced) ? Kindly help. 81.240.147.136 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The tags have to stay where they are right now, although you could possibly remove the notability one at the top with the argument that it is redundant to the AfD. The "fork" one that is at the top of a section also relates to the AfD - make your argument against it there.

I would not have advocated making an article on the incident; it is too soon to know whether it will have a lasting impact. What I would have done - and have argued for at the talk page of the ship article, as you saw if you are who I think you are - is get an article on the company up. A paragraph on the incident would fit well there. But the article would have to not attack the owners.

(Again, if you are who I think you are) you registered a username. Since you did that, it's not a good thing to still be editing as an IP. Please go to the username talkpage and go through the process in the block notice there to file for an unblock and rename. Not all the good user names are taken yet :-)

After you do that, I would advise you to calmly make your case at the AfD, but as I say, I also think an article (a neutrally written and well sourced article) on the company is your best bet. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Update to above: I hadn't realized TheRedPenOfDoom had moved the ship article; I thought you had created the incident article. I have now stated at the AfD what I believe should happen and why. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir (talk): Hello and thanks for all the very pertinent advise. I am a newbie and want to proceed with caution on this because of my recent experience with being blocked because I did not know some of the ground-rules on content-related and user-name related matters. That is why I appreciate your experience and opinion on these matters. I still have an IP user name but will rename/recreate another user in the near future. THANKS AGAIN ! 81.240.147.136 (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Yea, I decided to make more. Here. Epic (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)