User talk:Bobet/archive4

HI Bobet, I dont know if im putting this msg in the right place. Ive fairly new to wikipedia. This is in regards to deleting something from a page on the Korean film "The Host". I deleted that two foreigners were deported for working illegally in that film. Yes there was a news article about that, and maybe thats where you are getting your information. But that news articles is wrong. The reason I know this is because Im David Anselmo and I was not deported. Nor did I have an illegal work visa. So I will re edit the page again, but this time only take out my name from the post. Please respond. Im curious about your opinion on the matter. And if this msg is in the wrong place. I do apologize as Im not to familiar with this site. Thank you

Categorization of image on en:

I gave the image a category for reasons that might become clearer upon viewing Category:Marquesas Islands... I feel fairly strongly that once a Wikipedia user finally discovers the "categories" field of articles, that categorizing images [properly, not frivolously] serves an equally important rôle as that of categorizing articles does. [If you didn't catch it in there, I tried to rather pointedly say that the vast majority of Wikipedia users don't even realize that categories exist, much less understand their importance...which is why I argue so strongly against deleting navigational templates...] That said, if the sole reason the image was tagged as it was is because of what I did, perhaps I need a bit of an education. As far as I'm aware, the image is not actually duplicated into the en: imagespace by the simple addition of a category--I was under the impression that a simple pointer was entered into the language-specific imagespace that loaded the image from wmediaspace. If it were not so, I fail to see how it's possible that I could have edited the image's description field at all, w/in en:imagespace, since I did nothing to copy the image thereto, other than to insert a wikilink for it in Eiao...which produced the map from wmediaspace, and when I clicked on it, showed it as being w/in en:imagespace. Did I miss a tutorial somewhere? Tomer^talk 07:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a commons acct, unsurprisingly, with the same username as my en: and multiple other language wp [and even memory-alpha] accounts. What I'm saying is that just because an image is catted as for the Marquesas Islands on the Commons doesn't trickle down to a similar categorization on en:. I addressed my perspective on this on WP:ANI, now that I think I fully understand your gripe. Anyhoo, for now, at 3:03 AM, I need to get to bed. Cheers, Tomer^talk 08:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply's on AN/I (CSD commons)

here Gotyear 21:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied at AN/I, copying your reply on my talk page because it imparts additional useful info not in your AN/I reply. Hopefully a few more people will see it.

Also, Merope was right. I asked him (I hate not knowing people's genders online when referring to them in the 3rd person) to help me rollback, since he'd done a few, but he said he wasn't sure if he was doing the right thing. I understood his reluctance, but especially with Gimmetrow's reasoning "Many of the blank ones have history that may be worth saving." and Grandmasterka's assistance and rebuke "It's disruptive to mark a lot of images as "corrupt or missing" when this is clearly not the case.", I felt it would be prudent for me to finish the task.

I thought of adding that to AN/I instead of here, but I realized that it'd tip my response over into "Way too wordy to read". :) It's already that, but sadly I never learned how to put Strunk's "Omit needless words!" to practical use.

Thank you again for not whaling on me once you realized it was an honest mistake on my part. While I know some people's Wikistress is high, this experience with my first major screw-up has so far been positive, and reminds me of "If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you'll never learn." (Ray Bradbury) Gotyear 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chevaline2.jpg

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. It does help to understand what has happened here.

I note from a glance at Udseiq's list of contributions that all 113 were made in the space of 41 minutes on the same day; an edit rate of one per 22 seconds. So he/she could not possibly have edited each one after looking at the page and forming a judgement. There is also a warning placed on his Talk page by an administrator for edits other than the Chevaline one, suggesting that Udseiq's motives or methods were less than correct.

I'm not accustomed to my good faith, my honesty, or my integrity being challenged by someone who doesn't know me or has not bothered himself/herself with reading what I'd written. Be in no doubt; if I could identify Udseig's real name and address I would issue a writ for damages in the UK High Court alleging libel. Perhaps when he/she is hit hard in the wallet will he/she learn to behave better.

BTW, the photographer of the Chevaline shot is also the copyright holder, is a good friend of mine, who I meet face-to-face ocassionally, who gave permission for his copyright to be used on Wikipedia on the understanding that its subsequent use elsewhere was permissable provided he was acknowleded as the photographer, in the usual manner. The image file made that crystal clear to readers. Chris Gibson's photographs are frequently pillaged by others without consent or acknowledgement, and on this ocassion he was very pleased to be asked for his consent, that was freely given. If we (at Wikipedia) then raise nitpicking objections in the face of such generosity, then Wikipedia will not deserve to survive and prosper. A more sensible use of Udseiq's time would be to correct those licence tags that do not meet his exacting standards, rather than disrupt the work, and waste the time of others who prefer to spend their time creatively, adding value to Wikipedia. In that way Udseiq might actually make some friends. Brian.Burnell 11:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While I made an error regarding the Commons images that Udsieq nominated for CSD, I agree from looking at some of the comments about the other images nominated for deletion that discussion if the uploader is still active, changing it to the relevant copyright template, or making a least a minimal effort to find a missing source or add an appropriate fair use reasoning is far more beneficial for Wikipedia than just deleting the image.

Even disregarding the arguable incivility of some of these actions, I argue that it degrades the project if the following are deleted: an image which would qualify for fair use if a sentence of reasoning is added, an image has the incorrect copyright tag, an image where the uploader is still active and you can ask him/her to do the legwork on adding source etc. info. It's better to do any of these things before just nominating for deletion. Gotyear 13:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Replying here since there are comments from two people:

The images I've looked at by now have all qualified per csd i2. I generally agree that if an image is obviously fair use, such as an album or a dvd cover, it's easy to tag it properly, however if someone just tags those with gfdl or some other random tag, it becomes another issue (I've seen those too).

Usually people contact the image uploaders when they tag one of their images with something that would eventually lead to its deletion, but simply waiting for a reply before tagging isn't always a feasible option (since one would have to write down all of the image names they are planning to tag, along with the dates that they contacted the uploader etc.). Since images can be undeleted now, if someone replies late, no lasting harm is usually done. - Bobet 13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Walter Andrew Stephenson on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Walter Andrew Stephenson. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. BenBurch 00:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter Pan (film)

Hi Bobet, since you did the same for Jesus Christ Superstar, I've got one article move that should go to a page which is a redirect. Peter Pan (1924 film) has to be moved to Peter Pan (film), since there is no earlier film version. I have cleared all links from the redirect page, excepet for 2 that should be pointing there. As soon as you clear the page and do the move, I will also fix all links to (1924 film) to point to (film). I would be greatful to learn how a redirect page is cleared (I thought it had to be marked and submited someplace). Hoverfish 15:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was just pointed out to me that I have misunderstood the guidelines and earlier versions must not be the (film) name necessarily. So this move doesn't really need to be done. Sorry for the hasty request. Hoverfish 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

AMG

Hi I dont know if you noticed but I replied on my talk page about this subject. Please talk before you change anything :) I dont know if you have all the info -- UKPhoenix79 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD closing incomplete?

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roseland United Church (Windsor), I think you missed deleting Paulin Memorial Presbyterian Church, which was on the same AFD. --Brianyoumans 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigga Moments

I'd be happy to take a crack at the merge - thanks for asking. However, it will have to be tomorrow; I've stayed up too late watching election coverage. Is there wikiquette as to how quickly this should be done? -Kubigula (ave) 05:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI - merge is done. Once I culled the original research, there was precious little left to merge. -Kubigula (ave) 04:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies

Sorry. It was late, I was tired, and I was just trying to revert some quasi-vandalism. I must have used the wrong revisions as my revert target. David Bergan 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yesterdog on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yesterdog. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --W.marsh 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are once again turning fact into fiction Bobet

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You recently removed my response to Dan T.'s question on this archive page here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_October_22 plus from these archive pages;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Miscellaneous/2006_October_16
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140

To distribute any written word (history) or record by ommitting or deleting "all the facts", or directly aiming at influencing the opinions or behavior of people, rather than "impartially" providing information.is Propaganda. I dont believe that it is fair or proper that you have once "again" decided to turn Fact into fiction in Wikipedia Bobet, Fact Finder 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So which fact did I turn into fiction? I told you to edit some page that isn't an archive so that people would actually see your random rants. The point of the archive pages is to contain discussions that have already happened, they don't document who was 'right' or 'wrong' in an argument or really have anything on which you should need to comment. If you've something more to say, add a new thread in the main (non-archive) pages. - Bobet 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

????

Why is the article on Dragon Fable deleted?! Whats more, why is it protected from being created?!!!!Wikipedia is supposed to be Boldly edited and open to creativity. Even if the article was crap, if it was open ppl could work on it and it would get better. DF is supposed to surpass AQ in so many ways. Why are deleting you this article?

signed, a very upset DrakeKobra 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation

The articles will be corrected later today. Thanks for letting me know the run around.

Cut and Paste Repairs

Just dropping by to say thanks. Everything looks like it worked out just fine. Good solution with the double merge and well done. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim Ki-duk article

How do you know that stuff is copywrite? --Andrewrutherford 08:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit^talk on behalf of Kaldari 00:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Webb

My apologies. I seem to have forgotten the sequence and how to create a dab page and create a new page. Sorry for the extra work. Orbicle 13:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple route

• Wikkipedia (AfD discussion)

What a waste of effort! Why didn't you take the simple route and simply revert to the redirect by Gray Porpoise that was already right there in the edit history? You did check the history before speedily deleting, didn't you? We're supposed to. Uncle G 12:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Priscilla D

Priscilla D appears to be a serial copyviolator (this seems to be the main problem, even more than the machine translations). I have left a warning, but guess that most of her contributions should probably be deleted. Kusma (討論) 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Film notability issue in Village Pump

Hi Bobet, if you are interested, please take a look in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Film Notability, and Notability in general. Your experience and view on the issue may be very useful. Hoverfish Talk 17:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

mami wata on drv...sorta

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I'm notifying you because I had to move a misplaced DRV nom by Mwhs (talk · contribs · count) on the DRV page. I'm not quite sure why it was placed on 19 Jan (and therefore doesn't show up yet on the main DRV page), but in any case...there you go. Cheers! Syrthiss 18:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Job for a Cowboy

I'm not asking for it to be undeleted so do not worry! I am asking about your suggestion to make it in a userspace, - here - they have done that, and I was wondering what you think needs to be improved before it can be added to a proper page? Any suggestions would be helpful, thanks Asics^Talk 12:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Job for a Cowboy

Normally, I would have thought the same thing. However, at DRV closing message was "Deletion endorced -- currently in userspace". Doesn't that mean that it should be moved back to the mainspace eventually? Correct me if I'm wrong, because that sure seems the case. (And I know that that is not what normally goes on, yesterday another person asked it and I told them to take it to DRV, before I got your message.) Cbrown1023 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 07:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article under NEESit

The article under NEESit was deleted and a question regarding permission was raised. I wish to inform you that I have uploaded this article and that I am the Principal Investigator of this project. This NEESit project is among the projects of the San Diego Super Computer Center (SDSC). My Name is Ahmed Elgamal and I can be reached at elgamal@ucsd.edu

I hope the above is adequate explanation for the permission issue. I will attempt to re-create this article. If any additional clarifications are needed, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you and best regards.

Wigamki 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Twice25

Hi!,
sorry but I don't speak English. In order to The ByrdBrains why did you delete it? I think it's a honest stub. I didn't understand it. I re-insert this article cause I didn't see it was delete. --「Twice^28.0 · contributions · talk」 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I exactly don't know the policies of en:wiki about this argument. Anyway I invite to you to watch similar articles in category:Tribute bands. This stub can however adequately be developed. --「Twice^28.0 · contributions · talk」 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry again for my very bad English ^^

Although I don't speak English I have understood how much you say. Unfortunately I cannot widen the article-based Italian tongue version because I don't speak English. However feel free of delete it, if you think it's allright so. --「Twice^28.0 · contributions · talk」 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

users dkfan1

you may want to check his reply to you on his user page..User_talk:DKfan1 he has simular replies to others on there as well. he's a menace to wikipedia and needs to be booted. Alankc 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet

Hi Bobet, thank you for taking the time to look into the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sir_Keith_Arbuthnot%2C_8th_Baronet. There are a number of similar articles for various Baronets where no assertion of notability is contained within the article other than the inherited of title Baronet.

Therefore for future reference can you please explain why you decided to keep rather than delete or merge? thank you.--SameBatTime 13:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private First Class Stephan "Obi" Obrieski

Thanks for letting me know. I'll do the merge and a partial cleanup now and will get to the full cleanup later today. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

dates

could you explain that a bit better - do you mean it's ok to use just [[foo in film|foo]] if there's no other date, but not April 9, [[foo in film|foo]] or [[April 9]], [[foo in film|foo]]. I've seen variations on the themes used in infoboxes and in articles; is there any set guideline? SkierRMH 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. examples - A Corner in Wheat - infobox dated way #2; The Cowboy Millionaire - just year in article.SkierRMH 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I'll go back and revert - some of them were in infoboxes and some were in the articles. I'll try to get the info in the articles. There's some that are just single dates, so I'll have to look those over before reverting.

Which leads to another 'project'; as in the above example, there's quite a few of these that are already in place! :( SkierRMH 21:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

'Great minds think alike' - I was just doing the same when I got your last message:[1]SkierRMH 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for repair to Ercole d'Este I

Hi, Bobet. Thank you for taking care of the history merge and "move back" for Ercole d'Este I. And, yes, I agree, figuring out for sure what the "correct" name should be, is secondary to remedying the situation of having two existing articles which were near duplicates, but had disjoint histories due to the cut and paste. Now that you've got us back "on track", hopefully any interested editors can discuss best naming options according to Wikipedia conventions and/or precedents, and can make any subsequent move with the use of the move tab. Thanks again, Lini 03:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bobet. Thanks for your help on my edit attempts. I keep forgetting to sign in before I edit, I know! Janeybee 22:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Payphone Article Changes

Hey, I saw your revisions to the Payphone article, and agree with most of your link removals, as several of the accumulated links on the page did appear to be spam. However, I'm not sure why you deleted this line:

*** [http://www.yapl.org/ YAPL: Yet Another Payphone List]

As far as I can tell, YAPL is in the same boat as the other payphone directory links that you left on the page. I added YAPL to the list yesterday, and although I'm not affiliated with the site in any way, I remembered the website upon viewing the other links in the article and felt it would be appropriate to add it. Please let me know if I missed something. Thanks, Alan Joyce 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I can understand how the link would have appeared redundant (especially considering the name), but I'm going to go ahead and add it back in, as the website does have some features that the other directories are lacking, and could be useful as an additional resource. Thanks again, Alan Joyce 03:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Message on my talk page

Thank you for the message. I think I maybe took assume good faith a bit too far. I will let you know if it is listed at DRV.

There is a long-term "vandal" who keeps on writing these types of articles, it's hard to keep track of him.

Thanks for your message. --sunstar net^talk 08:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Criterion Collection category

Thanks for your generous offer. I actually have to leave my machine here so that would be a big help. I got a start on the process already. Thanks again. InnocuousPseudonym 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

fair use in portals

there is currently a proposed amendment to include fair use images in the portal space at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2. I have decided to contact you because you expressed interest in this topic in the past. Please know that I am contacting all editors who partipated in discussions regarding this at WT:FUC. If you feel I contactd you in error, or just don't care :) please ignore me. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to complete the lists for every country so please give me time ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 22:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK this is fine but just wondering that why if the south and north korea is such an issue that ther eis only the Cinema of Korea article? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean cinema of the korean language I meant seperate Cinema of South Korea and Cinema of North Korea pages - other countries which have had different regimes like Russia has seperate pages for each of the periods e.g Cinema of the Russian empire pre 1917. I just though it might be politically more correct ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC) e.g Cinema of Korea would cover up until when the country split in two ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I am trying to make everything as politically correct as possible. Myself and other users such as Hoverfish for instance have been recategorizing German films as relative to the period e.g Category:West German films etc. Otherwise the naming is redundant for the time period. If the article is detailed enough and is valid for decent seperate articles of their own I would strongly advise it. Cinema of Korea would cover up to about 1950? (is it my knowledge of histroy isn't fantastic on the far east) at the end of the article there would be links following then to Cinema of Sotuh Korea and Cinema of North Korea sound good? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I thought -it may also encourage development of the respective cinemas after 1955 -really at present it is like Ukrainian cinema still being part of Cinema of Russia when they have long been seperate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi do you mind then if I create seperately List of South Korean films and List of North Korean films then where I can put them all in year order and add details? THis will be infitting with the lists of every other country. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK thats great. I have started what I think will be good soon enough (I did remember who saying about the split) I really think it is best to be politically correct as possible. What do you think of the template here: {{Cinema of Korea sidebar}} If you like I can add your list at the bottom as Korean language films A-Z if you like I see the great article on Cinema of Korea is neatly divided as well. It is about 40kb -would you feel happy to split the bottom section into the two articles Cinema of SOuth Korea and Cinema of North Korea? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

THis way I keep your A-Z list fully intact but also have the chronology as for each country. THis is what I have done with the List of German films which are very difficult to list. However I think it is right that Category:Korean films should only include films pre 1948 -It is Category:Korean-language films should categorize all of them. MOst of the films in the Korean category should be corrected as South Korean films - I see most users have been doing this already which is correct ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kawabata Makoto

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, there are many people who released singles who are not notable, therefore asserting the existence of singles is not a claim to notability. (WP:BAND doesn't include merely having singles). That said I've no personal interest in if we have/don't have the article beyond the quality aspect of wikipedia, if you believe it is, or will (shortly) be made into a reasonable article then I've no problem with its restoration. --pgk 10:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you so much for your comment. I understand what you are saying. Please feel free to levae comments.Thanks (=

AFI 100 years

I've already forwarded the mail to the permissions id (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) a week back, and I've not gotten a response yet from Wikipedia. How do I find out whether the group of articles have been tagged or not?

Balajiviswanathan 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I forward you the mail, can you take care of reforwarding to permissions ID as I dont know how long will the ticketing process take.

Balajiviswanathan 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I am deeeply sorry about the accusations about this stuff with James Bourne. The fact that i probaly got my facts mix-uped somewhere since i am new within this mounth. If you get this message, leave a comment under the subtitle"James Bourne". Thank you, Politics rule 6:37, 17 april 2007, (UTC)

• However i am just going to give some advice. you shouldn't go on to other people's talk pages and put back on comments they took off. It is considered vandalism!

Cheers- Politics rule 8:59pm EST. 4/18/2007