Wikipedia:Village pump/May 2003 archive

Wanted pages update Could the Wanted pages be updated please ?

When to use InterWiki links What's the recommendation for using InterWiki links? Most links to other wikis are written out in URLs - should these be changed to the appropriate InterWiki links? Should the articles about other wikis themselves use URLs, InterWiki links, or both? Geoffrey 03:31 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia clock inaccuracy Err... maybe I'm being stupid, but the Wikipedia clock seems to be out by about 8 minutes. I'm writing this at 11:16 BST (10:16 UTC) -- Mintguy 10:09 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

It's been getting worse for months, but I never got around to saying something... -- Tim Starling 12:00 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Clock is now out by about 9 minutes (Written at 10:58 UTC) Mintguy 10:50 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

That is probably because computers maintain the time in software when they're turned on... This means it can go offtime over a long period of usage, especially in a computer which has a CPU under constant heavy load as the extra cycles further the disruption of time emulation. I had a computer lose 5 hours in 18 once. The solution is to have the server automatically connect to a timehost over the network such as at sntp://ns.arc.nasa.gov , this will sync the server's time to within a few miliseconds of an atomic clock.

The proper way to handle all of this is to run an RFC-1305 NTP daemon (i.e. xntp) on the server. On all current Unices, it handles the issue of clock synchronization in an elegant manner. [1] (http://www.ntp.org/) -- Egil 07:55 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Could someone with access just ssh to the server and set the clock by their watch!? Simpler than NTP (though I know NTP is simple and would be better). --Geoffrey 21:20 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

---

I often have trouble with the wikipedia responding slowly and would like to have an offline version, I would rather download a simple package just install run then the wiki code which looks a bit complicated, so I though the tomberaider database would be the simples but I can not download it! Is it still supporeted? I try to download from /wiki/Wikipedia_as_TomeRaider_database_-_download_instructions but get "The page cannot be found" error. Have anypne made a one download offline version of wikipedia? I think that would be a very interesting project. Prefereably running on windows, but a standalone bootable linux CD would be interesting also.

Stefan[?] 01:15 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia:Readers' FAQ. The TomeRaider database is the only thing currently available. However, the links seem to be broken. Anyone know what the problem is? -- Stephen Gilbert 14:34 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I fixed the links (I think). -- Notheruser 14:43 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Stefan[?] 03:58 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

---

Anthere listed a bunch of pages on my talk page. These are a great many former redirects which she blanked because they were not equivalent to the thing being redirected to. e.g. Agroecology had redirected to Ecology. She wanted me to delete them, but I don't want to make a false step. Should I:

1. not delete them and hope someone will turn them into a stub;
2. not delete them and restore the redirects, or
3. delete them? - Montréalais

From a quick look at them, I would favour deleting most (though not all) of them, but in any case, the right thing for Anthere to do is put them on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and take it from there (you shouldn't feel obliged to do anything if you don't want to). --Camembert

I mostly asked you because you deleted on sight my comment on disagreement. I see not well which difference there is between deleting disagreement and deleting industrial waste. None have any article on them. But, of course, I will have to blank them everyday till they are deleted, and maybe budda will recreate them all after deletion .... best would be stub, yes anthere

---

A couple of times in the past, using Internet Explorer 5.2 for the Mac on wiki I have been hit by bugs whereby letters on the keyboard would mean different things to what they should. I ended up closing IE completely and re-opening and usually though not always this went away. Tonight, the same phenomenon has struck this time on the safari browser in wiki. (And true to form, as I write about it here, it has cleared up, but only after I had left wiki and opened up other pages using safari, where no such problem existed. Then, back in wiki, everything was fine. [[[[][][][]][ Yippee!!! I can type square brackets again. And yes, 'y' produces y and not 'z' ( and 'z' produces z not y.) This is not the first time this has happened on safari, and I experienced it on IE. And never ever outside wiki. It is making using wiki almost impossible. I just did an archive on the talk page of Communist state and I had to cut and page colons, square brackets, round brackets, etc. I could not even sign a contribution as the ~~~~ could not be typed, and my É in my name had had the fada (that thing on the top) on the bottom. I presume that there is a browser problem, but as it only ever seems to happen on wiki, there must be a wiki side to it. ÉÍREman 00:32 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

It happened again, when I tried to type in the talk page of Wilhelm II of Germany. I left, went onto a different screen, when into hotmail, typed there. Everything came out correctly and when I went back into wiki on another screen, hey presto, everything is working again. What is going on? ÉÍREman 01:24 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

One of the usual German keyboard layouts is pretty similar to the English/American layouts (QWERTY), except the 'Y' and 'Z' are switched around (thus it's sometimes called 'QWERTZ'), and of course there are some keys usurped to add the umlaut and eszets needed. If you're getting the 'Y' and 'Z' switched, it sounds like you might be inadvertantly switching to a German keyboard. I don't know about Macs in particular, but usually there's an option or setting to have some certain key combination switch among the keyboard choices; e.g., in GNOME, I use left ALT + SHIFT to switch, and it's configurable. You're probably hitting the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) key combination at some point and getting switched to the German keyboard. Check your internationalization settings, and see if it lists the key combo there, or just remove the German one from the list to avoid getting that one in particular. -- John Owens 07:22 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Try Command-Space or Command-Shift-Space, if I remember. Also, ensure the little flag in the menubar (if you have one) is an American (or your country's) flag, not a German one; click on it like a menu to change. You may also want to check the International control panel (assuming Mac OS X). Geoffrey

---

Is there an index of "most read" or "most indexed" articles? I'd like to read what others are reading. (Recent changes aren't exactly the same thing.) Thanks. Samw 02:30 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

There's a "most read" page: Popular pages. It is updated every now and then, but I don't think there's much change in a short term. Wikipedia:List of articles frequently visited through Google is helpful too. --Menchi 06:04 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

---

Trouble with some Holy Roman Emperors I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but there's a serious problem with the current nomenclature for Holy Roman Emperors named Henry. I mentioned this in the "German Kings and Emperors" talk page, but I suspect that nobody reads that, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Essentially, they're all numbered wrong. The traditional numbering is as follows: Henry I the Fowler 919-936 (who was only German King, and not Emperor, and thus the problem) Henry II 1002-1024 Henry III 1039-1056 Henry IV 1056-1106 Henry V 1106-1125 Henry VI 1190-1197 Henry VII 1308-1313

Currently, the Wikipedia articles are set at one number too low, due to Henry the Fowler's not being an actual emperor. Thus, the article on Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor refers to the man who is always called Henry IV. And so forth. This is completely wrong. I'm new here, so I'm not sure how to go about fixing this, as it would seem to involve switching around the texts of numerous articles. Any help would be appreciated john 08:22 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

On further investigation, I discover that these changes to the Henry's were all the work in the last few months of User:Eclecticology, and seem to have been part of a devoted program to "correct" information which was already right. Sigh. Could still use some help. john 08:31 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

---

I wonder if perhaps a sysop could lock the Frumpysnarf[?] page? Hephaestos 20:25 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Done. For the record, this was done to prevent an anonymous user continuously posting rubbish there -- the page has been deleted many times before. -- Tim Starling 07:22 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Trouble is, now the demonstration on Wikipedia:How to start a page won't work properly. (The demonstration is the reason for Frumpysnarf[?]'s long history of bizarre new-user experimentation, of course.) Mind you, I'm not sure the demonstration is giving the right message anyway: twice now, I've seen new users create their articles at Frumpysnarf[?] and then rename them, instead of creating the new article outright. -- Paul A 07:33 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

---

The pseudorandom number generator which backs the Special:Randompage link appears to be not so good. I just hit it about two dozen times and had several links come up multiple times. -º¡º

Emphasis on pseudo. I got RNA transcription four times in about a dozen clicks - twice in succession. Also, Thats how a nigger goes came up - but redirected to Johnny Rebel. I thought redirects were excluded. Geoffrey

Here's what I found out with a few SQL queries. The cur_random field values are strongly clustered up around the high end. In fact, there are no articles at all between about 0.18 and 0.4, and only few below 0.18. A few minutes of browsing through the old versions of SpecialRandompage.php shows why. A previous version of the software selected the lowest-numbered cur_random value, and set it to a random value. So here's why we now see poor results: Most of the pages are clustered up above 0.9 or so, so when you click Special:Randompage, there's a high chance of picking one of the few low-numbered articles. The cur_random value is then reset, and there's still a high chance of the new value being below 0.9. Hence, the few priveleged low-numbered articles get selected far more often, and unless someone re-randomizes cur_random column, it will take a long time for the high-numbered articles to diffuse back down. -- Tim Starling 04:25 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I've re-randomized the whole bunch. --Brion 15:16 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

While we're discussing random pages, would it be acceptable do uninclude all pages with a comma and a state name in the title? I'd like to see real articles, not bot-written city data (which accounts for a considerable percentage of Wikipedia articles). --Geoffrey

I find them to be a useful reminder of the pros and cons of attempts to automate the generation of articles, heh-heh (yes, you get more material, but the quality is lower). It's also a fun game to try to find something interesting to say about a random town. Could be organized even - each month have a contest for the smallest town to get a new factoid connecting it to some other Wikipedia article. Legit articles only, no list of towns with Artichoke Queens[?]! :-) Stan 23:13 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Long, long ago, someone suggested removing the Ram-Man/Rambot articles from Special:Randompage, but Ram-Man argued that those articles need just as much editorial attention as all the other articles. As I remember it, no-one else made any comments. I agree with Geoffrey -- I would like to see them excluded. With the current version of Special:Randompage software, it would be fairly easy to set cur_random for all Rambot articles to -1, thereby ensuring they never get selected. But understand that it's controversial, and therefore unlikely to be implemented. -- Tim Starling 06:00 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

Another technical issue: several times tonight, I've clicked "Watch this page", gone back to it, refreshed, shift-refreshed, and no matter what, it still says "Watch this page" instead of "Stop watching" like it ought to. I haven't yet gone to check whether the pages are bolded on Special:Recentchanges or if they appear at all on Special:Watchlist, but I'll do that next time it happens (if it does, which it doubtless won't now that I'm looking for it ;). So far, whenever I've clicked it a second time, that's taken care of the matter. -- John Owens 06:02 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I just got a chance at this, and it doesn't show up bold on Special:Recentchanges, which suggests it isn't just a non-refreshing issue (I've been getting a lot of weirdness with that tonight, too). -- John Owens 08:16 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

John, what page are you trying to watch? If you say what it is, I can check if it's gotten into the database properly. --Brion 15:16 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Well, of course, so far, I've always just done it again until it works, so I don't currently have any examples. Further observation has led me to believe it just takes a minute or so for something to catch up; I've gone to Recent Changes, reloaded, seen it not bold, then without trying to add to watchlist again, reloaded again and it came up bold then. I've seen the watched pages themselves do more or less the same thing, even with shift-reload, showing unwatched at first and then watched a minute or so later. -- John Owens 17:51 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Sometimes when I've edited a page in the past couple of days, I'll still get the old version after I "Save page", until I shift-reload again. I can see why this might happen, but it didn't happen in the past either, and it feels related to me. -- John Owens 06:04 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

Has someone changed the page layout. I am now getting the underlines in the left hand menu going right accross the screen, and am unable to access the top fields. I think this was working yesterday. (using Mozilla 1.4a) -- Chris Q 07:02 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I get that often when the server is really suffering, and I'm guessing the CSS doesn't get properly transferred, so those go clear across like you see. (I'm using Galeon-1.2.10/Mozilla-1.3.) Usually, once the server's recovered a bit, a shift-reload will clear it up. At the moment, they're working fine for me, but the server seemed pretty bogged down a few minutes ago. -- John Owens 07:09 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the problem. --Brion 15:16 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

OK, this may seem kinda strange, but since I go to the school, I figure I have a right to talk about it. :) And since I have no idea how to go about fixing this, I've decided to bring it up here.

Anyway, on the Minnesota page, the "College of Saint Benedict" and "Saint John's University" are listed as two separate institutions, and link to two separate Wikipedia articles (both empty), when actually they are a joint academic institution (see http://www.csbsju.edu ) ... also, on the List of colleges and universities starting with S page, the institution is erroneously referred to as "St. John's University, College of Saint Benedict" when in actuality they are always listed in alphabetical order and spelled out in full.

HOWEVER (and here's the kicker), I'm not sure what the proper naming for the correct entry should be. The institution is normally referred to as College of Saint Benedict | Saint John's University in "official" terms (ie, the full names with a pipe character as separation), or as CSB/SJU in shorthand (ie, the abbreviations with a slash as separation). Should there be new #redirects for CSB and SJU (listed in full) that redirect to a joint page? What would the naming for the joint page be? Should the institution still be listed separately (ie, CSB on "C" and SJU on "S") with both links being the same, or should it be listed just once as a doubly-named institution (the latter of which is slightly more correct)? As you can see, I'm really confused by this ....

If someone can help me out in this, I'll be glad to start filling out the entry for this school! Thanks a bunch! -- TimmyD 07:52 May 1, 2003 (UTC)~

Many good questions on the organization (yep, the 'pedia is all about org), here's what I think:

1. Yes, it'd be useful to have redirect pages for both colleges that go to a joint page.
2. The joint page's title should be the full, official name: if College of Saint Benedict | Saint John's University is what it is. (How rare that the punctuation mark of a pipe is used in the official name!)
3. The institution is better listed as College of Saint Benedict | Saint John's University on the C page and as Saint John's University (College of Saint Benedict | Saint John's University) on the S page, for the ease of browsing

These aren't the "official" answers, however. I'm just speaking from my understanding and experience as a Wikipedian. If for some reason, those pages or their titles should be changed, they can be, with ease. The 'pedia is flexible and changeable. It isn't like an academic paper that once you submitted it, you can't change it anymore. --Menchi 09:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Using a pipe in an article title might confuse the software a touch - using a slash might be safer... Martin 10:15 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Pipe doesn't work in titles, obviously. Use the slash. --Brion 15:16 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

OK, so College of Saint Benedict / Saint John's University has been created, I double-check to make sure nothing was still left linking to St._John's_University,_College_of_St._Benedict[?] (the old link from the S page), and this page should be the only one that does. With regards to redirects, however, should there be three or what? CSB/SJU, College of Saint Benedict, and Saint John's University (Minnesota) -- note that there is also a Saint John's University in New York, hence the parentheses -- perhaps the other SJU link on the S page should reflect Saint John's University (New York)? This seems really over my head for only my fourth day or so here, but it's great to learn and go through this stuff! Thanks for the help so far! -- TimmyD 05:30 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

You've gone a great job on the CSB/SJU page. Very informative. Now, onto your Qs:

1. Yes, having the three redirects (CSB/SJU, College of Saint Benedict, and Saint John's University (Minnesota)) is a good idea. You can even make redirects CSB and CSB if you find it helpful, but that's not necessary.
2. You're correct that SJU New York's link should be Saint John's University (New York), since not one SJU is particularly more famous than the other. (Well, at least not up here in Canada....)

I've given you a little feedback on the CSB/SJU Talk page. --Menchi 08:12 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

I've decided to let St. John's University[?] still refer to the one in New York, since as far as I can tell, the offical name is not spelled out like the college I'm at (ie, Saint vs St.) thus there shouldn't be confusion between the two? Perhaps instead I'll go through and just add "(New York)" to the four articles that mention St. John's University[?] so as to help distinguish, or is it enough of a similarity that there should be St. John's University (New York)[?]? --TimmyD 06:06 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Page Title of St. John's University New York

You made a good point. Since there is difference in the official spelling, it is redundant to title St. John's University (New York)[?], since there is only one institution truely and properly called "St. John's University". However, in a non-official ad, it refers to itself as "St. John's University NY". [2] (http://www.google.com/search?q=St.%20John%27s%20University) So, I think we can have St. John's University (New York)[?] as a redirect page and St. John's University[?] as the main page. --Menchi 07:03 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Mentionings of SJU NY

Maybe instead of adding "(New York)" to the four pages that mentions SJU NY, it can be written like "St. John's University in New York" or "St. John's University, New York", so that it's more grammatical. --Menchi 07:03 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Since the difference between SJU NY and your SJU would confuse most people (including me, had I not have this discussion), it'd help to include a disambiguation block on top of each of the SJU pages. For examples, see Asia and China.

An equal disambiguation page is impossible in this case, since not one or the other SJU can be the title of the disambiguation page. --Menchi 07:09 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Not sure where this ought to go, but I often think when carrying on a discussion through User_talk: pages, it would be rather nice if the ~~~ sig went to the User_talk: page instead of the User: page. An even better solution might be a different combination, either more tildes, or three or four of some other character (@@@? %%%?), which would give a link to your talk page instead. Feasable? I would think so. Worthwhile? You decide, I don't do PHP. -- John Owens 07:10 May 2, 2003 (UTC) | John Owens 07:09 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting idea, but is there really that much effort saved versus clicking on your username and then clicking the "Talk" link on the bottom? To me, at least, it seems to be perfectly fine with the setup as it is currently.

Perhaps, instead of having it be two different commands, just add the User_talk: page as a part of the ~~~~ signature, like it is listed on the Recent Changes page? So like TimmyD (Talk), as I feel that would be a better representation of what it's actually attempting to convey.

--TimmyD 06:06 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider why we need seperate user and user talk pages? Martin

---

Knowing nothing about PHP and little about Wiki, I would like to hear from one of your online experts whether it might be possible to embed a Smalltalk VM, select and run (doIT) a method (script) from within the Wiki. -- Jus

Well, I don't know much about Smalltalk, but I can tell you that the current version of Wikipedia software doesn't allow anything vaguely resembling scripting. It basically has an "allowed tags" list, and an "allowed attributes" list. Both lists are pretty short. You can try to convince everyone to change the software, but note that previous suggestions to allow client-side scripting have met with an icy reception. -- Tim Starling 05:51 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

On that note, I'd like to see the <span> tag added to the list of allowed tags. -- John Owens 21:26 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Re: "Client-side scripting" Tim Starling[?] above; Somehow I don't feel phased with what you said, reminded by "if it aint broke don't fix it". I'm conditioned by Prolog with its 2 instructions, Cut and Fail, and where the System-Typing is implicit in the predicate DB design. I'm trying to figure out just what (technical within Wikipedia) resources are available for building some sort of Propadeutic such as in Britannica where the Atoms of knowledge are in the Micropaedia and the Articles are topicalised in the Macropaedia. Am I right in thinking that the "icy reception" is simply the prefernce to err on the side of caution? Is it going too far to suggest that Wikipedia is merely a good Data Capture device? By the way is this the place to talk about such things? user:Jus

Wikipedia makes decision by consensus-finding, which makes seems to make it conservative. If you're just making suggestions and not offering to write code, you have to get one of the developers on your side, or your suggestion will just be ignored and forgotten about. As for choice of forum, here is fine for short disscussions (i.e. not much longer than this is now) and newbie stuff. Then there's the mailing list wikipedia-l for policy discussion (which this is), wikitech-l for technical implentation (which this probably won't become but it's there just in case) and meta for longer proposals and essays. -- Tim Starling 03:34 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

---

---

I spent several hours uploading and inserting photographs into many, many, many articles on Saturday evening and virtually every one of them got modified. I would appreciate some explanation as to why they were modified, instead of just being slapped across the face with the back of the hand. Why should I bother trying to contribute? I'm starting to feel that this is personal. -- Zoe

Hmm, I only noticed the pictures being compressed (the few that I looked at). Are these the changes you're referring to? -- Notheruser 01:52 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with your compressing them. It's Egil and his ilk running around behind me and modifying almost everything I did without an explanation. -- Zoe

I've done some editing on the U.S. presidential election images (e.g. U.S. presidential election, 1800) to right align rather than center them. I certainly didn't mean offense; it was intended as explained on Talk:U.S. presidential election. Incidently, your uploads inspired me to go find the source, which I did, and now there's instructions on Talk:U.S. presidential election for how to get the latest digital versions from nationalatlas.gov (I did U.S. presidential election, 1988 - U.S. presidential election, 2000, and I'm taking a break, hoping someone beats me to the rest of the job) ;-) -- RobLa 03:17 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, are you really DW? Has someone altered your precious prose? ;) Seriously, what is the problem here? Is there anything in particular that you object to? All I've seen doing spotchecks over your recent contributions is recompression and formatting tweaks, and there's nothing objectionable in that. Hell, I'm worried when people don't follow up on the articles that I've been working on. --Brion 03:39 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

As I said, I have no problem with the actions that Notheruser made, and I don't have any problems with RobLa's actions. It's mainly Egil, who felt it necessary to change almost every single caption and picture position that I made last night. It has nothing to do with "deathless prose", I have no problem when people change things for reasonable reasons. But when every one of my contributions is modified for what looks like just the sake of modification, then I start to object. -- Zoe

Just to clarify, I didn't actually compress any of the pictures. I was trying to ascertain the changes referenced. -- Notheruser 03:58 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

So in other words, Zoe, you are not complaining about any particular actions that were done, just the fact that someone made formatting changes to a bunch of pages shortly after you edited them? Why is there something wrong with this? This is a wiki for goodness' sake! We're supposed to clean up after one another. Pages don't suddenly become off-limits after you've touched them, and if you leave a large, very visible swath of work across Special:Recentchanges you should not be surprised if people look at those pages and make their own edits to a lot of them. (Particularly mass edits where you make a similar change to dozens of articles; if someone else finds the need to make additional tweaks on top of one or two of them, the same will likely be needed for the rest.) And yes, that includes formatting and wikification. It's all part of the process. That's how wiki works. --Brion 06:57 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I compressed a bunch of those images because many of the USDA images were 100-200K when they only really needed to be 25-50K. Living on dialup makes me particularly sensitive to image size. I tried not to alter the appearance of the images in any way; I just used Photoshop to compress the images down. I've started compressing other unnecessarily images down as well. I hope no personal offense was taken. -- Minesweeper 04:04 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Sometimes I make some edits and everyone reverts them or changes them again right away. But this is OK: I know it's only because you all hate me and are out to get me. Other times, I make some edits and no-one touches them or even reads them for months. But this is OK too, it just means that everyone is ignoring me because I am an incredibly boring and worthless person and you all hate me. And sometimes I make a bunch of edits and a few of them get changed and a few of them don't, and some people even post notes to say what nice edits they were. But this is OK, because I know that it is all just a plot by my enemies to confuse me with insincere fake praise because you all hate me. tAnNIn

(OK, now that I've had my fun, I'll make a serious comment: we all feel like that sometimes. It's part of the deal, you have to take the rough with the smooth. Just the same, I always think it is discourteous to sit on someone's hammer and follow their edits around. (Unless they are out-and-out vandals, of course.) Usually, if I find myself editing the same person's work for the third time in a row, I try to find something else to work on for a while so as not to be rude. As for yesterday's edits, I saw Zoe's name on all those uploads and edits and didn't look at them, because I figured that, whatever it was that she was doing, it would be good, positive work and I could leave those pages in her capable hands. (That's a compliment, Zoe.) Tannin 07:39 May 5, 2003 (UTC))

Thanks, Tannin. -- Zoe

---