Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Emma Watson talk page (Discussion page). (August 2004 - April 2006) - Please Do not edit!

IMDB

Removed text taken from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0914612/bio Everyone feel free to paraphrase that and integrate the facts into the article. Paranoid 12:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This long-standing factoid that she was named after her aunt is apparently untrue, but I only tried one source -- see [1], which says it was her paternal grandmother... :-? ugen64 02:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

It had to have been her paternal grandmother. If you remember from a few years ago, her birth name was listed as Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson II on all of her fan sites. Since she wasn't named after her mother (whose name is Jacqueline), the only other choice is her paternal grandmother for someone having the exact same name. The thing about II was incorrect, however, because her grandmother wasn't born with the last name Watson. Stephe1987 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's one of the problems. There isn't a single source outside of fandom that I can find that says anything other than she was named for a grandmother. It's only at the fansites that someone, somewhere, made the (since spread as fact) supposition that their names are identical. The grandmother may simply have been named Emma; "Duerre Watson" may have been nothing more than the parents' attempt to make sure both last names were represented. Until and unless I ever get an answer back from HPFilms, it's all conjecture. RadioKirk talk to me 19:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind about what I said before. Looking around, I think her aunt's name was either Emma or Charlotte. Duerre was her mother's last name and Watson came from her father. The (II) part came from IMDb by accident because our Emma is the second Emma Watson in their database. The paternal grandmother thing was probably also a confusion, driven by IMDb's numbering system. Stephe1987 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious entry removed

Anonymous user:200.73.180.22 added the following:

She also acted in british TV series Full Moon (1999)

I can find no mention of this anywhere: it is stated several times that the first HP film was her first professional engagement (indeed see this article). --Phil | Talk 09:36, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mhmm, I'm inclined to agree with you. ugen64 23:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Dubious Entry II

User:202.7.166.170 has recently made multiple edits under the trivia section and before reverting I wanted to ask the other community memebers if they thought the edits relavent. Thank you -Hoekenheef 14:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They all need to be sourced before they can be kept. The one about hair is obviously not NPOV. If verified, the bits about birthplace and ancestry are worth keeping I think (the others can go as far as I'm concerned). I'd rather see them in the bio part than tacked on as "trivia" though. --W(t) 14:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Makes sense. -Hoekenheef 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Trivia Section

I removed the trivia section once before and was reverted. I am now doing so again. This section is just plain silly and contains no relevant information. I now address each point as follows:

1. The Jane Austen reference has nothing to do with her. Unless her parents named her specifically after said character (which would still not be worth mentioning, I think, but would at least be a connection) then this is a random bit of coincidence of no encyclopedic value.

2. The IMDB reference is dumb. I doubt there is anyone that thinks she is "Emma Watson (II)", as the IMDB system is not so opaque. Even if a few poor souls are fooled, this is not relevant to her life or career.

She was named after her grandmother, who has the same name as Emma, but had a different last name at birth (which is why our Emma is not Emma Watson II even though fan sites from the early 2000's listed that as her birth name). Also, I would like to point out that IMDb puts the parentheses around Roman numerals to note that there is more than one person with that name in their database. Emma Watson (I) was an actress who played Marie-Laure Bresson in 1983 episodes of "Angels", Elizabeth Herbert in Florence Nightingale (1985), Dannie Bennett in the 1986 "Casualty" episode called "Gas," and Rosemary in To Be the Best (1992). Stephe1987 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Her height is not encyclopedic and may even still be subject to change since she is only fifteen. It was incorrect anyway.

Her height is 5' 5" (1.65 m) and she is done growing; 90% of girls have reached their full height by age 16 and Emma hasn't grown in a little over a year. (And to the people who say she is 5' 3" or 5' 7", she's not because Emma has given 5' 5" as her height for a while now.) But I agree that it's not encyclopedic. Stephe1987 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

4. I am sure she shares a birthday with a lot of people. This is not encyclopedic.

I agree with you and I hate when people add that to IMDb trivia—especially when they share a birthday with someone they haven't even worked with. But if it said Emma Thompson, I can see why someone put it—they made a pretty big deal about it a couple of years ago during the filming/release of Prisoner of Azkaban.Stephe1987 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

5. The fact that she has worn dental braces is the kind of thing one puts in a gossip magazine for young adults and not an encyclopedia.

6. If Lycos Top 50 internet pools are really that important, someone can put this factoid into the main section of the article. This is the only bit of information that seems like it may be relevant, but a trivia section is not neccessary to keep it.

Why is Lycos internet pools important? Stephe1987 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Not encyclopedic. There is no signifigance attachted to this fact.

Trivia sections in general are probably best avoided in an encyclopedia article, but they should at least contain relevant and interesting factoids. This is just a collection of useless and irrelevant facts and degrades the quality of the article. Indrian 17:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Death rumour?

The article stated rather baldly:

There are no truth to the rumors sparked on the internet that she has died.

I rather think that any such comment should be even more carefully supported by proper citation than normal. —Phil | Talk 11:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one that put it there. I'd read that somewhere but I forget. Thanks for taking it off for me. My bad.

Who cares about rumors? The point is that they are not true. Plus, Emma is obviously alive, so the "death rumor" shouldn't even be mentioned. Stephe1987 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos

I'm going to make the same complaint I made about the Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint articles regarding the photos: this article is too short to have two photos and not look ridiculous, especially since (as is currently the case on the Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint pages) one of the photos is right on top of the other. Someone needs to either move one of the photos down or delete it all together (I suggest the second one, since it's less flattering). --Hazey Jane 06:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that they should only have a photo of themself as a person. I hate it when they post photos of actors as the character they were playing. The Yule Ball photo belongs in the Hermione Granger section, NOT Emma Watson. Stephe1987 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so simple, unfortunately. Wikipedia must be very careful with copyvios. The pic was chosen because, as I point out in the pic summary, it is "simultaneously illustrative of the subject in real life", and because there is not a single fair-use-eligible pic of Emma older than, I think, age 10. On the other hand, now that we have the DVD here, I could use a cap from the special features... RadioKirk talk to me 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with screenshot from interview on the DVD :) RadioKirk talk to me 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection against vandalism?

This page is being vandalised so harshly. Maybe there is a need to protect this page from it? I really don't understand why people would find it funny to vandalise an article in an open encylopeaedia??? I mean, come on, don't they have something better to do?

--- Removed "She is also the hottest person alive :)" comment in filmography section. -P. Gawtry

I've seen on articles for politicians an anti-vandalism warning, stating that anyone who vandalizes that page could be blocked without further warning. I don't know how effective it would be, but could it possibly work here? --D-Day 12:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt. Is there a template for it? I've never come across that before. --NymphadoraTonks 17:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just posted the anti-vandal warning on the page. If anyone reads my user page, they'll get a strong idea of how I feel about vandals.(Of course, you'll also get a strong idea of why I hate vandals on this page in particular. ;) ).

Fan sites

Do we really need a list of fan sites at the bottom? We should either use them as sources and expand our own article, or get rid of them; after all, a google search for "Emma Watson" would be just as fruitful, if not more so... – ugen64 02:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The fan sites section is unnecessary. --WhyBeNormal 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Disagree other celebrities have fansites listed, why should we make an exception in Emma's case? --Azathar 03:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Addendum: Are you going to removed the fan sites from all other actor/actress pages as well? Also, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton, and Bonnie Wright all have fan sites listed on theirs, so, what is your justification on getting rid of Emma's?--Azathar 04:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

We should look into cutting down the fan sites on other pages. The reason is that they have little or no information, and are chiefly opinion forums. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm or portal. We only add external links when they are sources for material in the article, or can provide substantial additional info to our readers. -Willmcw 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'll leave that campaign to you then, as I don't feel they are an issue in an article, as long as they are at the end of the article. But, before you go and remove links, you may want to get some sort of wiki-wide consensus, and perhaps get some sort of policy created, otherwise, you may see lots of reverts from ppl who don't agree with you.--Azathar 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Our policies are at "Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia:external links. The latter says, under the heading "Maybe OK to add":

• Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.

There is a general consensus to keep external links to a minimum. -Willmcw 05:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Minimum does not mean none at all. Like your quote says, there can be a link to one major fanisre, or a web directory. None currently exists on this article. Instead, some editor decided that no fansites should be listed, and inserted a comment stating such, hence why i removed the comment. Part of wikipedia is that we are all suppose to work together, not one or two editors dictate what is good or bad for a specific page (Not that I am saying you are doing so Willmcw). I still don't see a major issue with a link to one or two major fansites, done tastefully and at the end of the article.--Azathar 06:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems we have with links is that everybody wants to add their own. Is one of the fansites for Watson pre-eminent above the rest? Otherwise, we'll be arguing with folks who say, "well you have that link why can't I add my link too?" If there is one major site out of many then we might add that one. But on the other hand, why? What will it add to the article? -Willmcw 06:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, why not then add the celebrity's official website to it the list of links. Most celebs have an official one, which also include links to some of the unofficial ones. As to your answer, Wikipedia is not a web depository of images, so, having a link to outside fan sites can give fans some ideas of where to search for images. And an encylopedia should be able to give some one other avenues to search. Search engines are fine, but they can be bulky and cumbersome sometimes. Like I said, I think you are going to get alot of reverts if you go and try to removed all fansites from every celeb article, so, its somethings that should be made into some sort of policy or published guideline before you go doing it, and I mean more then just a paragraph buried on a page about other policies. But, since I am not an Admin, I'm not going to bother trying to fight about it, I've stated my opinion, and you've stated yours. Since there seems to be consensus on this article 3-1 for no fan sites, I won't be adding them in anytime soon, but I don't think its the best decision.--Azathar 06:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible approach

One possible approach is to consult known websites which are reasonably trustworthy, like The Leaky Cauldron or MuggleNet to see which fansites they list. In fact, possibly the easiest (and laziest ;-)) method is to point to those lists: for example MuggleNet lists some of Emma's fansites here. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, in a manner identical to that used at Lindsay Lohan's WP page, I've added a link to the Yahoo! directory of Emma fan sites. RadioKirk 19:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Today, a fansite was added, then removed, then added again (then removed again, hehe). Given that we've added the Yahoo! list, I worry about allowing one fan site, then another, then another, ad nauseam, until we're right back to deleting them all, all over again. RadioKirk 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sites

I've had a look at the three sites linked at the bottom of the article and much of the information contained is incorrect.Do we really need any of them,other than the Imdb one?

Latest Edit

What a mess! Who hacked this article anyway? If I knew how to fix it. I would.--D-Day 23:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Line removal

Am removing distateful and very probably false addendum that someone has made to the opening paragraph regarding Ms. Watson's sex life. This stuff does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Validity of editor's notice

!-- NOTE TO EDITORS: Please note that vandalism of this page will not be tolerated. Vandalism will be taken as including/adding your own views, deleting large sections of text, inserting manifestly false information, as well as any blatant and disgusting innuendo that does NOT belong in an encyclopedia. Anyone who vandalizes the page may be blocked for 24 hours without further warning. Your activity may also be reported to your ISP for possible legal action. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. --

I wonder if this is truly valid, and in keeping with Wikipedia policies. I know vandlaism is wrong, but to write it up in this way appears to me to not be in the spirit of wikipedia, and I think it should be reviewed by someone not connected to this article.--Azathar 06:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I put it on there. The editors note is the same one used from many U.S. politician articles such as Bill Clinton, with the exception of the innuendo note because it corresponds to this article, and the reporting the user to the ISP, which I didn't add, and have no idea where it came from. I guess that means Ms. Watson could sue for sexual harrassment if she wanted to, but I highly doubt it.--D-Day 13:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well it is a nice idea in theory, what is an ISP going to do about vandals who are vandalising an free, open-source encyclopedia. I don't think they are going to do much, too much effort for something so little. Sometimes, the best thing to do is get the page protected for a few days to a week, and usually the vandals eventually move on to something else. If you want to keep it up, all the power to you, though I don't know if Emma is in the same category as a US politician, and it could be removed by some sysop.--Azathar 06:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the part about the ISP. I know for a fact that an ISP will act in particularly egregious cases and, frankly, some of these have been particularly egregious... RadioKirk 21:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that the warning is for US politicans only. Most of the warning on this page comes from it though, with one or two modifications. If it is though, I'll develop another one. --D-Day 15:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't feel we should have this notice, it is against the spirit of Wikipedia and mostly because of WP:BEANS. A lot of articles get vandalized and we have blocking policy and protection policy that handles these things, as well as the test templates which informs the user, nicely, that it is not good to vandalize. I am considering removing the notice. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the warning as false. This article has no special status. Note I have also edited Bill Clinton to remove the offending material. TacoDeposit 03:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have such a warning, simply because I am tired of fighting the daily vandalism on this page. Whatever we can do to discourage vandals is fine by me. I do not believe that this notice will in some way discourage honest contributions. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I am sympathetic of your frustration regarding vandalism, a warning stating that vandals on this article can be blocked without further warning, thus implying that this article enjoys special status above articles without the warning, is wrong. The standard is to warn vandals on their talk page before blocking, except in particularly egregious cases. TacoDeposit 05:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the warning has helped anything, but the vandalism on this page is just pathetic. I really don't know what to do now. Is it time to take it to an admin? --D-Day 20:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the admin who mentioned removing it, I have also blocked users that I have seen that have vandalized the page. I recommend you use WP:AIV during the vandalism, and warn the users with the {{test}} templates when it happens. Every article gets sporadic vandalism, and one minor test edit by random users doesn't validate protection or special status. IMHO. «»Who?¿?^meta 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Editors' notice re: Philosopher's Stone

<!-- EDITORS: Please do not change "Philosopher's"—see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Describing_points_of_view#Nationalism -->

I have added this tag after every occurrence of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (and, so far, so good). It seems odd how people could change it to the US title even in the sentence in which the different titles are noted, and why. I hope this helps people with a problem recognizing the "world view". RadioKirk 04:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Pic

Is that pic really Emma Watson? If so, would it have that copyright license, instead of fair use? Doidimais Brasil 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've confirmed that, indeed, the pic is of Miss Watson and is from ES magazine [2] but, to be honest, unless the uploader can demonstrate the magazine intended it for fair use, I tend to agree with you, it should be removed. RadioKirk 02:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the choice of licensing was wrong, but yes indeed, that is Emma. Why didn't you think it was her, Doidimais Brasil? Just curious...--Azathar 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Azathar, well, I have my, uh, reasons *embarassed*. Doidimais Brasil 02:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries, I was just curious.--Azathar 02:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Everything's going to change now, isn't it?" ;-) RadioKirk 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

lol--Azathar 20:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I finally found a decent promo shot (and have now added the source info) RadioKirk 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Promo shot" fair use under debate; inserted poster instead. RadioKirk 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're using "fair use" pics when editors have donated GFDL pics. -Willmcw 00:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dunno... every other bloody page uses film premiere pics—then again, each occurrence is a potential lawsuit... ;) RadioKirk 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"editors have donated GFDL pics" - which in reality means someone has stolen a photo off some other site and incorrectly tagged it here. None of the photos that were previously on this page were legally licenced, or if they were they lacked correct attribution and the uploader failed to provide it when asked. It's not on to simply take photos off other sites - would you also take the textual content? No... So what's the distinction here? You would have thought they at least one editor of this page would have taken their own photo of Emma Watson somewhere and would be willing to licence it under GFDL/CC - that's what Wikipedia's all about afterall.
But if you do beleive there are GFDL licneced photos of Emma Watson on Wikipedia or Commons then please tell me where... Thanks/wangi 22:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Emma Watson.jpg

This claims to have had its copyright released. Can anyone confirm this? RadioKirk 18:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

—Edit: This is not one of Emma's better shots, either; does it add anything to the article? RadioKirk 18:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If it were actually PD/GFDL (which I highly doubt), it would add something simply because it's the only copyright-kosher picture of Emma Watson we have. In any case I doubt it's PD or GFDL so it'll get deleted soon. – ugen64 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia: Watson and Jane Austen

I have restored (actually, rewritten) an old trivia point on Emma Watson and the Jane Austen character. I (for one) found this interesting, and I believe other readers will, too. This time, however, it's fully researched, with citations. RadioKirk 19:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Photos, again...

I guess one of my mini-crusades on Wikipedia is weed out all the photos getting used incorrectly and under the wrong terms/licence. It's something I've not been doing much of lately (rather i've been MoS:DPing) but this page is on my watchlist and it's a constant source of such images!

Anyway, to the point - I would have thought at least one person here would have taken their own photo, or have access to someone who has (and get it licenced from them)?

If not perhaps you guys can all keep it in mind...

Thanks/wangi 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yahoo! Movies is the source. I could be wrong, but I was of the belief that Yahoo! uses only those images released for promotional use. If not, when the film is released on DVD, I can screenshot it. RadioKirk 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made a request at WP:RI. – ugen64 06:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor Deletion: 'Selected' Filmography

As her filmography is currently limited to the Harry Potter films, I removed the word 'selected' as it seems to imply that she's acted in more films than listed. -UK-Logician-2006 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Good catch—I never saw that changed... RadioKirk ^{(talk to me)} 21:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"recognized primarily for"

as with the above, since she's never been in anything else, i'd suggest changing this to "recognised for". unless she's recognised for something i'm missing...

Hm... that's tough. As an actress, she's known only as Hermione Granger; to teenbois (is that how they spell it? I'm so behind...), she's recognized at premieres and public appearances as a babe-in-progress. Tough call... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

teenbois — I think that's pronounced and spelt "looser" ;) Anyway, I think the edit I just done[3] improves this/wangi 01:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL except, that would be spelled and pronounced "loser"—"looser" means "not as tight as". "Loser" is probably the most commonly misspelled word among the younger set. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Drat, just as well we're not editing Wiktionary...  ;)/wangi 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!!!! RadioKirk talk to me 03:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

protection

I kinda think that this page needs to be protected, because of it it getting vandalised as much as the Michael Jackson article, but that's just me --Karrmann

I disagree. It does not seem to be vandalised more than other similar pages. Additionally, I think the editors here do a good job of reverting the vandalism. Remember, if the page is protected, nobody can update it. However, if enough people think it should be protected, I can certainly apply the appropriate magic dust. --Yamla 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just went over the page history; sure, it gets its share, but this is nothing like some of the vandalism I've seen—and I've been fairly active for only a few months. RadioKirk talk to me 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

pictures

I noticed that there is a lot of controversy over copyvio photos, but i don't really like the idea of a movie poster illustrating the article. right now I'm browsing emma fansites (dear god please take me now) for a decent pic. What can I put on here that is acceptiable? --Karrmann

Technically, all images tagged as fair use (such as the one you have put in) are allowed; see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Publicity photos. (Note that the latter is only a proposed policy at this point.) However, to qualify as fair use, pictures must be sourced and properly attributed. While (in my opinion) the current picture is acceptable, I'd prefer something that came directly from either Warner Brothers or from Emma Watson's official site (if there is one). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Fallingdown's new pic should stay, as it is properly sourced and tagged. --Karrmann

dates

RadioKirk, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "parenthesis" - a parenthetical phrase is one that's set off and can be omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence (see comma (punctuation)). Now among other things, implying that "2006" in "In February, 2006, ..." was a parenthetical phrase does not make sense because the "2006" is essential to the meaning of the sentence.

But really, this is no debate - every source states that "month year" is correct as is "day month year" but commas are used in "month day, year". – ugen64 00:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can say I do have full understanding of what is parenthetical ("... in February (2006), Watson began..."), but the standard itself has changed over the years. I'm decidedly old-school when it comes to what's supposed to be correct, not what is current standard. For example, I refuse to misuse "presently". ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does get annoying when people say "presently" when they mean "now" - if the standards are still muddled then I will accept that. Sorry if I seemed abrupt :) – ugen64 02:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe 'salright. I'm still baffled by the inability to Use Headline Capping in Summaries, despite the ironically named "Manual of Style". ;) RadioKirk talk to me 03:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Compliments

Emma Watson is such a great actress. I enjoy watching her star in the Harry Potter series along with Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe. They are such talented young actors and I wish them the best of luck.

Oh, by the way, hi Emma. Though I highly doubt she'll ever read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertinesfan13 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your comments. While we appreciate your thoughts, for future reference, the discussion ("talk") pages of articles are not for comments about the topic, but instead for comments on how to improve the article or questions regarding editorial integrity. We are not a blog or discussion forum, and comments about the subject of an article are not appropriate here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)