User talk:Black Falcon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black Falcon is on a "semi-wikibreak" and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Falcon.

Archives

Archive 1 : Jul 2005 – Mar 2007 Archive 2 : Apr – Jun 2007 Archive 3 : Jul – Sep 2007 Archive 4 : Oct – Dec 2007 Archive 5 : Jan – Mar 2008 Archive 6 : Apr – Jun 2008

Contents 1 Insurgency 2 Thank you from Horologium 3 DYK 4 Re: Germanic language 5 New Project 6 Still at it 7 question about oldcfdfull 8 I dont know what you are talking about 9 Are blacks more intelligent? 10 Clarification on {{currentdisaster}} 11 User:Koavf 12 Article Box 13 Verification needed 14 Why is Arab citizen any better than Arab Israeli? 15 Recent changes to template 16 Lianga 17 I goofed. 18 Groundviews and Citizen Journalism links 19 Did you know section at Portal:Africa 20 Wikiproject Africa 21 Deletion review for Template:FootnotesSmall 22 Jedd Marrero 23 AfD closing 24 Hi! 25 wiki-pt 26 The Thing About Jane Spring 27 Thanks! 28 Kari Blackburn 29 3rd party request 30 Sapo National Park 31 Polyclonal response—Reply 32 The Thing About Jane Spring 33 For your userpage

[edit] Insurgency

For Lebanon, I'll agree. For Saadah I reverted and added sources. For S. Thailand see Insurgency in Aceh, Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, Insurgency in Aceh, Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002-present) - like the "War in": War in Afghanistan, War in Abkhazia etc... I only know Iraqi insurgency for your X insurgency, and that's special because it's Iraqi --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

google numbers shouldn't be an argument, I see no rule that says everything should be X insurgency nor X wars. I don't think all should be renamed --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I must go off now. Please don't move the articles. I propose inviting more users to the discussion, maybe on the page insurgency? Regards,--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied here and began thinking in a different way. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

[edit] DYK

On 1 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2008 Piliyandala bombing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Germanic language

OK, you don't need to chase me up on that, I believe you! :) I've misunderstood or misread many XfDs too, no need to apologise. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still at it

Seems Netmonger and Iwazaki are still at it, read this novel: [[1]]. Just ban them and be done with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question about oldcfdfull

Please check my comment on creating a template only for user category discussions [2] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I dont know what you are talking about

I have never edited a wikipedia entry. You might be thinking of someone else. I share a wireless connection at my college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.224.157 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct; my comment was directed to another person editing from a shared IP address. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are blacks more intelligent?

Evidence:

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

--70.68.179.142 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on {{currentdisaster}}

It can be used for ANY event where official information should be relied on instead of Wikipedia. It's just a fancy workaround I made for for WP:NDA. ViperSnake151 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Koavf

I hesitate to bring this up again, but ...

More editors than just me are still encountering problems with Koavf's CFD behaviour. Honestly, through this all I've tried to be as clear (while remaining polite) as possible, but for some reason he's just not "getting" some things and he's doing the same types of things again and again. I feel a tad petty bringing it up over and over again with him, but it's to the point where I at least find it disruptive b/c I feel like I should "keep and eye on" him to make sure he's not doing anything off the wall. I imagine User:Rockfang may be feeling the same way.

By the way, I've copied this message to the other admins who joined in on the recent conversation on Koavf's talk page and above on your talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Box

This box, User:Motorrad-67/notice/AmEng was recently created and the same user placed it on a few articles. Is this kosher? Not really sure. Hooper (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't (kosher, that is). User subpages should not be linked from or transcluded within articles. Moreover, while article message boxes are an exception to the rule that there should be no disclaimers in articles, the exception applies only to message boxes that are intended to be temporary (that is, the message boxes highlight a particular issue that needs to be addressed; when the issue is addressed, the box should be removed). The disclaimer contained in User:Motorrad-67/notice/AmEng, however, is not intended to be a temporary one. I will revert the edits and leave a note on the user's talk page. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verification needed

Hey Black Falcon I am wondering if you would verify a couple a couple of things in Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism. A user is refuting a couple of claims made in that article. That , however, seems to be a simple mis-interpretation of the situation. I got my claims from a book, and if you can verify , I will scan the pages of the book and have it sent to your email. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to try to help. Am I correct in assuming that you're referring to the dispute regarding the claim that the "Federal Party never asked for a separate state or even for self-determination"? If so, then a scan isn't necessary as I was able to find the text of pg. 83 of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism by A. J. Wilson, which states: "Till 1974 the FP did not demand self-determination, let alone separate statehood."

On the one hand, that quote does clearly confirm the sentence in the article. On the other, the text of the resolution noted by Snowolfd4 clearly includes an indication of a desire for self-determination. That same source, however, also lists the "policy objectives ... contained in the constitution" of the Federal Party, and autonomy or independence are not among them.

My question, then, is this: According to the source, the resolution was moved by a Dr. E. M. V. Naganathan. Are the views expressed in the resolution those of Dr. Naganathan only or do they reflect the formal stance of the Federal Party? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct in your claims. I think it is really a mis-understanding. I think that the resolution (or the speech that he gave) was his expressions only. The party adapted four policies that did not ask for a separate statehood or self-determination. Even today you probably seen politicians make comments that are clearly not the in the way of thinking of their party. Sometimes they even go against their parties core policies. In this case, this is just a speech and he could have done this purely for popularity purposes. Indeed to decide the desire of a political party (at least as a face value because anything else would be OR) one only needs to look at the core policies. Watchdogb (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing some research about the Federal Party to try to be able to offer a more informed opinion, and I'll try to post a response soon. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Take all the time you want. I appreciate the time your offering to help out. Thanks once again Watchdogb (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bump. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Arab citizen any better than Arab Israeli?

I answered your main question at the talk page, but because I have written quite a bit too much there I thought I'd answer your other query here!

So, why is Israeli Arab slightly worse? I understand why it would seem better, that the emphasis is on Arab identity. Thanks for your effort to come up with another option upon which we might all be able to agree. I suppose it's that, even as if emphasizes Arabness ultimately, the problem with the reverse is simply that it puts Israeliness first! With this issue of ordering, the emphasis is quite a subtle matter and sometimes varies, doesn't it? For instance, even though Jews in Germany were often very very connected with their Germanness, even more than their Jewishness, I've only heard "German Jew" never Jewish German.

To summarize again, as I said on the talk page, the reason for this repulsion to the term "Arab Israeli" is not hatred of Israelis. However, feelings are very very mixed and there is of course a great deal of anger and trauma. It is difficult to be called something that is associated with your internal displacement, the end of your national aspirations, dispossession from your house and lands, and isolation from the rest of your people, etc. There was a time that some took a "wait-and-see" attitude, and some might have accepted the term Israeli at the expense of Palestinian connections. But in the end, overall most Arabs in Israel did not feel that they were treated as Israelis. In turn many feel that to be called an Israeli Arab forces allegiance to Israel over their Palestinian brethren, that the term forces them to choose sides, prove loyalties.

Excuse me if I seem to repeat myself over-much. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have responded to your comment(s) at the CFD discussion and have also amended my initial recommendation. Best, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes to template

Hello. Can you please cite the specific Wikipedia policy you are referencing regarding your recent change to the Christian music template? Thank you. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace - sorry for not linking to the page in my edit summary. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lianga

Hi. The article Ake Lianga has been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to comment, the discussion is here. Thanks. Aridd (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've offered my opinion at the AfD discussion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I goofed.

I goofed and I'm in the process of fixing it. Very sorry for creating some confusion. Doczilla _STOMP! 02:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Groundviews and Citizen Journalism links

Is there any reason you are deleting the links I place to Groundviews and related Citizen Journalism links in Sri Lanka? These are international award winning sites and offer, in the articles I have put them under, perspectives that will be useful to readers.

Sanjana Hattotuwa Editor, Groundviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yajitha (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles should generally contain only a few external links (see Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember, #4), and the links they contain should generally be of high quality (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources), informative to the reader, and appropriate to the scope of the article.

Reliability of sources: For the most part, "citizen journalism" sources are similar to blogs, and they are written with little or no independent oversight. Such links, as well as links that contain unverifiable personal research–which citizen journalism sources do–should generally be avoided.

Informative to the reader: One of the links (vikalpa) is not written in English, and so is of very limited use to readers of the English-language Wikipedia. The others, because they are essentially just blogs, are equally of little use in providing an encyclopedic (i.e. factual and neutral) treatment of the subjects.

Appropriate to the scope of the article: Four links on the subject of "citizen journalism in Sri Lanka" do not belong in an article that is intended to provide a general treatment of the Sri Lankan Civil War (a conflict spanning 25 years) in its entirety or one that is intended to provide a treatment of the condition and history of the Sri Lankan media (which has an even longer history extending well before independence in 1948). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know section at Portal:Africa

Hi, I have left a message at Portal talk:Africa which you might be interested in. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 13:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Africa

I was looking at this project and am curious as to whether or not it is still active? Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is active. About a dozen editors are actively involved in the project itself and a larger number are involved with Africa-related articles without being active at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa. The project's members also use/maintain Portal:Africa (talk page) and the Africa-related regional notice board. Are you considering joining? If so, we're always happy to have new members. Please let me know if there's anything with which I can help. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that a lot of the country projects seem to be marginally active. Would it be wise to tag them as historical? Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of them (about 40 or so) were created only a few months ago. Though the projects themselves sometimes see little activity, their admittedly few members are generally quite active. For instance, John Carter (talk · contribs) and Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs)–both highly active users–belong to most or all of the country projects. I myself belong to a few, as do numerous other members of the main Africa WikiProject. I'd suggest seeking broader input before tagging them as inactive. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to object if I try to recruit more users and work on redesigning the main page?Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the main page of WikiProject Africa? If so, I'd say be bold and redesign away... (I find the current format to be rather cluttered and inefficient.) I also don't think anyone would object to efforts to recruit more members. By my estimate, Africa is the least-covered continent on Wikipedia (followed by South America), and probably the most significant reason for that is a lack of involved editors. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to make it bit closer to MILHIST. Is there a project barnstar already (If not, I will just design one)?Geoff Plourde (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a project barnstar: see Template:The AfricaProject Award. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Template:FootnotesSmall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:FootnotesSmall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rockfang (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jedd Marrero

Could you or whoever deleted the article undelte it? It was my brothers Birthday Gift, his Birthday is today, and I'd promise him I'd do it. Please? And if you do undelete it, please tell other people not to erase it. and sorry about VegaDark's edit thing. I thought he erased it. Please post it back. Thnx. —Mrsral 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the article was deleted twice. The record of the deletions, including the names of the editors who deleted the pages, is available here. Although you can technically ask them to undelete the article, they are unlikely to do so (in fact, they really shouldn't do it). Though it may be a nice idea for a birthday gift to post an online profile about your brother, Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for doing something like that. Also, since Wikipedia is one of the top-searched and -copied websites, it has a strict policy governing articles about living persons that is designed to protect the privacy and reputation of living people. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closing

Thanks, I better go check the other ones I did today then... --MPerel 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those, now I know : ) --MPerel 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hello Falcon!

Thanks for your attention and subsequent comments on the talk page of article polyclonal response. I found your comment very useful (not because they were positive), but as by your own confession you found the article understandable. As you must be aware, the article is on hold following a good article nomination.I have started a detailed discussion of each section of the article on its GA review page. I'd find it very useful if you'd add your comments as I am in a great dilemma whether to keep the glossary section in the article or not. I got the inspiration from a similar section in another article on 'chromatography.' There it actually served the purpose well. As I see you are an experienced Wikipedian, so there shouldn't be any problems in your reviewing the article, too. From what I understand is that for issues like verifiability, NPOV, stability and factual accuracy, people with knowledge of the field are required, but for other issues like article's fluency, intelligibility, comprehensiveness and summary-style (meaning if it is felt that the article contains too much unrequired information).

My major problem has been to strike a balance between adhering to WP:MOS, and also keeping the article intelligible. I suppose that balance has somewhat got tipped in favor of latter, but as I read the guidelines well, I realized that they are guidelines and not strict rules, and that for a justified cause (intelligibility of a fairly complicated concept0, an article can depart from that. The difference between this article and many others is that it is not a mere description of facts, say history of a certain war, or side effects of certain drug. I had read an article on subject called epistemology from Encyclopaedia Britannica some three years back. The page to which I am providing the link is shown only incompletely, but, somehow if you could gain access to the encyclopedia, I'd strongly recommend going through it. Partly, so that you'll get my point, but even otherwise, it's one of the most beautiful pieces of reasoning and assertion that I have come across, and you'll definitely enjoy reading it. The point of mentioning the Britannica article is that it (such an established encyclopedia) totally departed from the usual style employed in almost all its articles only so that a complicated concept could be explained well. Major part of the article was employed to discuss a situation—a pencil dipped in water at an angle appearing bent!

So, keeping these things in mind, I request you to contribute your views to the GA talk page, and help improve the article.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 10:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'd be happy to try to help.

I've read your comment above and your response to Dr. Cash at Talk:Polyclonal response/GA2, and I can understand your reason for introducing the "Explanation of difficult terms and concepts" section. In my opinion, the article is comphrensible to a layperson who is willing to click a few links (either article links or the "show" links of the templates). When I read it, I already knew the definitions of "pathogen", "host", "protein", "antibody", and had a vague idea of some of the other terms (for instance, I knew that peptides consisted of amino acids, but that was almost the entirety of my knowledge of the subject).

While the templates did help me to better understand the content of the article, I think the "Explanation" section could at least partly be replaced by in-text links and/or in-text explanation. The template helped me only because I clicked on the "show" links, and one could argue that an editor who is not willing to click a link to another article will not click the links to "show" the definitions contained in the templates. Then again, it's easier for a reader to read a single article than to jump back and forth between multiple ones.

I will try to offer a clearer and more detailed section-by-section response on the GA review subpage later today. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wiki-pt

I really hope you will enjoy your stay on wiki-pt. Lechatjaune (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Thing About Jane Spring

Very nice cleanup! I'd be happy for that to appear in the mainspace, and it would get DYK'd if you nominated it. Just for future reference (though it's definitely not a problem), the plot summary doesn't have to be referenced because it's descriptive, so Wikipedia:REF#When to cite sources doesn't apply. But good work, and thanks for letting me know; it was a good read! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hi!

Thanks for the edits you made in the article polyclonal response. They will definitely be useful for the article. Regards. —KetanPanchal^taLK 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also prepared comments for a few other sections (I've saved the comments in my text editor), which I'll post soon. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kari Blackburn

On 1 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kari Blackburn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd party request

Hello. I have noticed you and you seem a fair and competent admin. Trying to stop an edit war over at Circumcision. Request your opinion on if last source added to article constitutes UNDUE. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The addition of the source to the article does not give that particular position undue weight; however, adding it to the lead is more complex. My suggestion would be to move the last paragraphs of the lead (starting with "The American Medical Association...") to a more specific section. The lead of an article is intended to provide a general introduction to a topic, not summaries of detailed statistical studies. The primary arguments of the opponents and proponents of circumcision are already covered in the paragraph that begins with "Neonatal circumcision advocates claim circumcision...". I hope that helps. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thank you for your time. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon, thank you for agreeing to provide an opinion to help us resolve this dispute. I'd like to understand your opinion better. I hope you don't mind if I comment here. I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to elaborate on your opinion in response to my commente below.

The position that circumcision may not necessarily have a preventative effect against HIV probably does belong in the article somehow, and is currently sort-of represented by the sentence "Before there were any results from randomized controlled trials, reviews of observational data differed as to whether there was sufficient evidence for an intervention effect of circumcision against HIV", which is based on two review studies (meta-analyses), and for inserting which, incidentally, I was accused on my RfA of being "anti-science" (see "...is the first anti-science edit I found..." by OrangeMarlin.) However, having represented that overall information based on the review studies, I think it violates WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE to cite one individual observational study: why that particular study rather than any of the others covered in the review studies? While you say that adding it to the article doesn't give that position undue weight – which I agree with, depending on how it's added – nevertheless I think it gives that particular source undue weight. A better way to give more weight to the position, if that is to be done, would be to lengthen and make more prominent the material summarized from the review studies.

To confidently assert an alternative opinion, we would need sources published after and commenting on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and stating an alternative opinion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Like this one, maybe. Blackworm (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, Black Falcon. I was confused when I wrote the above message. I shouldn't have posted it. I'm sorry to have taken up your time. Don't feel you have to reply to it unless you want to. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sapo National Park

Hello, I put the GA nomination on hold. comments are on the talk page. I hope they can be addressed. Renata (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polyclonal response—Reply

Hi,

A personal matter has come up, and I won't be able to invest much time into Wikipedia over the next 2-3 weeks. That means that I won't be able to offer a detailed review of the Polyclonal response article. So, I want to offer to you the comments that I've drafted so far.

Aside from the suggestions I've posted at Talk:Polyclonal response/GA2, I would like to suggest three other changes:

1. Various sections of the article need referencing (for example, "Proliferation and differentiation of B cell", "Clonality of B cells"). If you've retrieved the information from the sources that are already cited, then you could still add in-text citations to clarify this.
2. While shortened footnotes are not required per se, they could help to make the "Notes" section more readable. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened notes for more details.
3. I've had some difficulty making up my mind on the issue of the "Explanation of difficult terms and concepts" section, but ultimately I would suggest removing the section and instead making more use of in-text wikilinks.

Best of luck, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the attention and time you gave to the article. I'm typing out this response immediately. So, will require to go through the sections. Yes, you've rightly mentioned that I should have inline references for the sections you pointed out. That won't be difficult at all.

I've decided to weed out the section dealing with difficult terms as it is proving to be so contentious.

I'll decided about the footnotes. It's more of personal preference to keep them in the current form, but if there's consensus about abbreviating the notes, I will. Somehow, this would sound weird, but I'd feel that the other authors will not get due credit if I abbreviate the references (particularly, Goldsby, et al "Immunology", in which the author who actually started the book is mentioned last in the list--even on the cover of the book).

Your response was most helpful. Wish you a happy Wiki-break.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Thing About Jane Spring

On 6 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Thing About Jane Spring, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For your userpage

Hi, I added a few small things to Sapo National Park while it was being reviewed for GA, since you seem to be on a wikibreak. The article passed the review, so this is for your userpage. All the best, Bláthnaid 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)