User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

November – December, 2009

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits at Animal cruelty

I just recently posted the "Animal Cruelty Statistics" section. I was trying to put information about the worldwide animal cruelty statistics. It did not pertain to laws, persay, of other countries. I just thought that the addition would catch people's eye and let them know how bad animal cruelty actually is.

14082009aug—Preceding unsigned comment added by 14082009aug (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 November 2009

Thanks. I'll answer at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Neuroscience

Hi! Thanks for the welcoming!I decided to join after I found that there are many articles that need expansion and since there are few subjects with which I'm familiar. However, there is still the language and time barrier -but I'll do my best. My expertise is in cognitive neuroscience and I wish to find an article need improvment and join to the efforts-I know many, but will welcome any guidance, I guess that to improve an article alone would be much harder. So, if you have any idea/s, it would be welcomed. Best wishes --Gilisa (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

30% no confidence and desysopping

In Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC#Support_5.1 you wrote: "If one needs around 70% to pass RfA, then one should still need around 70% to retain the community's support."

This can lead to yo-yo RFA/DRFAs, where a person has 75-80% support in an RFA, makes a mistake, then gets hounded by the 20-25% of people who were against him and their friends, "losing" a DRFA with 65-70% support, then a month later running in a drama-filled RFA that results in some outcome, followed by another drama-filled RFA or DRFA and so on and so on.

By putting a wide margin between the "get the job" support level of 70% and the "keep the job" support level of 30%, you avoid drama-filled back-and-forths. Perhaps 30% is too low a support level to keep the job, perhaps 40% or 50% is more appropriate, but it should be quite a distance from the level needed to re-gain the bit in a subsequent RFA. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my talk to discuss this further. As I've been saying throughout, this particular point is the toughest one to work out during this comment period, and also the most important to get right. Let's see what happens. And, as it happens, just after seeing your comment here, I also saw your bold edit at the proposal. You will see that I modified it, to try to show that it represents a change, but I did not want to actually revert it. I also commented at the project talk, and you can see what I said there. I hope you understand that I wasn't intending to disrespect the edit you made, but, rather, to avoid confusing other editors who are evaluating the proposal. Whether I succeeded at that or not remains to be seen, I guess. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal at CDA draft

In Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC#3._Publicity_required You propose: "3.2 Modify the second bullet point about publicity." but you don't say how. I infer from your support statement that you want to remove the requirement from the Admin and crat noticeboards. Could you clarify your proposal so it is clearer?

Assuming I inferred correctly, I think wider notice is required. I'm still mulling over where it should be, seems like it ought to be incorporated into the RfX table, but if not, it needs wider notice than just the Miscellaneous board. Maybe this just reflects my reading habits, I often go to Village Pump and start reading through Policy, then Technical, then Proposals. My intention is to continue on to Miscellaneous, but sometimes I don't get there. Not a sufficient argument in itself, but I suspect that Miscellaneous isn't sufficiently viewed for such a major issue.--SPhilbrickT 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing that out to me. You are right, and that's very helpful. I'm still trying to think it all through, but I'll work on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy. Ben MacDui 19:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

maybe

Hi. Given your interest in science and religion, you may find the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faraday_Institute to be of interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All well said. BTW, as you no doubt knew, I had no way to know which way you would vote -- simply that the subject matter was of interest to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, you could not know. Thanks, glad I could help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd seen it done both ways and was led to believe the period should go after the ref. Thanks for clearing it up. Cmiych (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion

I have removed the non-free image again, since it fails enwiki policies, notably WP:NFCC#8. I have no idea what the edit-summary you placed when you reverted me means, but it appears to be a combination of assuming bad faith, personal attack and ignorance of policy. Probably not the best idea, really. Black Kite 05:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Under the circumstances, I had assumed quite naturally, but based on what you say here I now realize wrongly, that you were familiar with what was going on at the same time at the talk page of the article. Now, I realize that you were not, and that your noticing the image at this time was purely a coincidence. Please let me suggest that you take a look at the talk page, where there is currently a discussion about that section, including, unfortunately, some very bad canvassing. I'm sorry that you got caught up in it, but I think that you will see that it was understandable on my part. Now, that said, I'm going to go to that talk myself, and speak to the issue you raised about WP:NFCC#8. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. To pass NFCC8 though, the image really does have to add to the subject in a way that would not be possible without it. Since an image showing an anime character on a cross is easy for the reader to imagine, and since the subject of the article is crucifixion, not "crucifixion in anime", it don't see any way it can pass the criteria. I don't have any view on the existence of the section itself though! Black Kite 16:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The way I see it, the image is about the subject of that part of the article, as opposed to of the article as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The best thing I can say is to repeat what I've already said elsewhere. It seems Crucifixion in Japan is a historically significant topic. God knows we have several articles on "X in country Y", and it would probably not be objected to if one were created for this, which would potentially include all aspects of Japanese culture. The big problem I see is that anime is only one small part, historically, of that one culture, which is itself not directly relevant to a large part of the world. In fact, other aspects of the subject are probably much more significant. And since the Popular Culture WikiProject has started, pop culture articles have been treated with a bit more respect, so I don't think that an article on crucifixion in the broader culture would be likely to be deleted if it dealt with the subject well. With Johnbod's help, I'm fairly sure the Christian art aspect could be covered very well, because he is an excellent developer of content on that subject. And I don't criticize you for reducing the amount of cruft in the article, but applaud that. We tend to get more pop culture, "fannish" editors of all sorts than academic types around here, so many or most articles get that sort of thing. My own mention of the crucifixion scene from GL/GA was because it is one of those which is pointed to as being most important in that 70's "comics can be socially relevant" (and in this case a little shocking) phase, which itself got a lot of attention at the time and is still considered significant in the history of the medium. Having said that, I just think a bare mention of that scene, and maybe of why it would be important, would merit inclusion. My own preference would be to create a crucifixion or crosses in pop culture article, which I would hope would follow a basically historical format, which could also include doggerel (I think I remember a nursery rhyme mentioning it, I'd have to check), discuss how portraying the crucifixion itself was not permitted in Christian art for several centuries, and what other symbols were used instead, how and why that changed over time, etc. But, particularly considering displaying the crucifixion per se was verboten for at least a few centuries, I think that there is sufficient cause for such an article to exist, along with all the content which there clearly exists about the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. When one gets right down to it, you and I actually agree to a very large extent. I sure hope that, once we get past the current drama, we can actually come to a productive outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

WP:There is no deadline Moved here from Talk:Crucifixion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Am I the only one around here who sees something wrong with the picture that we have an active RfC, opened only a few days ago, that invites editors from throughout the community to come to this talk and evaluate a section of the page that no longer exists? Let me please invite interested editors to take a deep breath, and reflect, I mean really reflect, on what has happened at this page over the last few days. I'll comment more on this soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC) You're wrong, get over it. Yzak Jule (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Well, that's one alternative to reflection. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I appreciate that you've put in quite a bit of time and effort in maintaining this page over the past year and that you did prune the Anime section from its original even messier state. However, an consensus has been formed to remove the section. At this stage, you're pretty much the only person against this. Take a deep breath and consider just for a second that the dozens of people that have argued for the removal did so, not because of "meat-puppetry" or some web mob mentality but rather a genuine desire to improve the page. And your RFC has already done its job by roping in interested editors. It would only make sense to continue the discussion if there was any further dissent but you're the only one arguing to keep the section at this point. Leecming82 (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Hello Leecming82, and welcome to Wikipedia. I believe this was your first edit here (quite a place to start!). I appreciate that what you have said, you said in a spirit of constructive criticism, and I'm taking it seriously. However, you are incorrect on several facts. Some editors did indeed have a genuine desire to improve the page, but many clearly did not, and it is not "my" RfC, as another editor started it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I'm concerned that you're increasingly gaming the system for your ends. (1) While you did not create the initial RfC, I find it inappropriate to make comments such as "What I do ask is that editors who are reasonable, please speak up substantively at the talk page." [1] in the ANI discussion where the tone of the discussion is already colored. (2) You state on this talk page [2] -- "I'd definitely want to give [a long-time editor of this article] a chance to come back before making any decisions." While you're correct in citing WP:DEADLINE, that comment treads on WP:OWN territory. You then go on to state [3], "Hi TJRC, I hope that you don't feel discouraged about the last couple of days. I, for one, am not going anywhere." which suggests an attempt at votestacking under WP:Canvassing. (3) You placed a NPOV notice on the section, then failed to explain why [4]. And you haven't yet expanded on your comment in this subhead, either. Again, the RfC is there, so interested parties are free to comment on their own. If you're unable or unwilling to carry out your argument at that time, why start them? (4) You reverted [5] an edit to remove vandalism when you and everyone else can see the diffs if they needed to. Keeping it there contributed to the negative atmosphere on this page that you were against. (5) I appreciate that you have been one of the more civil participants in this discussion and understand that you're forced to deal with the blunt of the trolling, but there's more to cooperative discussion than what's outlined in WP:CIVIL. There's a persistent tone of condescension in your posts which is not conducive to a cooperative discussion. There is no need to make indirect comments such as "Am I the only one around here...", or "I mean really reflect," and "Clearly, a high-quality scholarly site (sarcasm intentional)." [6] Just say what you have in mind, and let others respond accordingly. Nobi (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I feel I need to reply to Nobi's accusations, although they do little to advance this talk page, because they factually distort what I actually did and said. There is no gaming by me. Standing my ground is not gaming. (1) The quote you presented was in the context of editors who were, rightly, concerned about personal attacks, and hate-speech against people with a disease, and I encouraged them to speak out against it. You incorrectly imply that I was lobbying them to agree with me about content, but that's simply not true. (2) I said that I wanted an editor who has long cared about this page to have an opportunity to comment if he chooses to, which is just common courtesy. I much later went to that editor's talk and in effect told him not to feel discouraged about criticism directed at him, and that he has a friend in me, which I did in the course of thanking numerous editors who have been kind or helpful to me. You are making a stretch to see those things as some kind of conspiracy. (Arguments about OWN tend to come around in circles. Editors who decide that there is consensus when there are more editors than me raising questions, and thus decide that whoever comes later to an RfC won't need to be heard, could just as well be accused of OWNership.) (3) As I said in the diff you cited, "I will explain what specifically concerns me in the near future. I'm concerned that, if I go into detail now, it will be counter-productive..." because of the ongoing incivility. That was yesterday, not exactly a long time ago, and within a very short amount of time the section was removed to another page, removing my tag and making an explanation moot. And, after that move, I commented here that I wanted more time to think about it, per no deadline. You raise an issue of my not commenting more in this section, after only a couple of hours (during which, as it happens, I was on an airplane), which again sounds like a deadline to me. (4) Some other editors have complained that removing the incivility was censorship. And please don't make it sound like I created the atmosphere that the slur in question created. (5) Thank you for acknowledging that I have been one of the more civil participants in this process. The middle quote, about really reflect[ing], is just a good idea and much-needed, and I totally stand by it. In fact, while the other two quotes are sarcastic, I stand by them too, and it is a distortion to take them in isolation from everything else I have said. There is no moral equivalency between what I said in those quotes and the plethora of utterly abhorrent speech. I find it strange that you feel sensitive about those two sarcastic statements, while, when another editor used your name in saying "It's all paranoiac bullshit. What people are saying is that a bunch of shit cartoons..." you never felt the need to distance yourself from it. I've been saying what I have on my mind, and just look how some (but not all!) have responded. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC) All of your endless typing, and not one solid justification to have an "in anime" section at all. None. Anime isn't that culturally important, but that seems to have escaped you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The endless typing directly above is a response to endless accusations. I've made plenty of justifications for my comments. It's your opinion whether they're "solid" or not, but perhaps their solidity escaped you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the Crucifixion discussion page

Hi,

Thought I'd reply to you here rather than on the crucifixion talk page (because it isn't really relevant to that discussion) but to answer your question: you said in the post above mine - 'We can talk about specific edits shortening the material, but what I've been hearing so far from this recent talk (not limited to you) has been the equivalent of "Wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing". No thoughtful editor would take that seriously. --Tryptofish'

One implication that could be derived from that is that my own posts were also the equivalent of "wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing", which of course could not be further from my intended - and stated - opinions. Upon reviewing it again it seems you may have been trying to say "not including you" or something along those lines so there's no problem here as far as I'm concerned, but on a text based medium tone doesn't carry very well so it helps to be very specific about what you want to say, especially when such a message could be misconstrued. Hope that clarifies it anyway. :) IgorsBrain (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, point taken. At this point, I can't remember everything that's been said, and I'm pretty sure you are right that I simply mispoke. I've just had death threats removed from my talk page, so this hasn't exactly been the kind of situation that Wikipedia strives for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that - no one should have to put up with that anywhere, let alone a community based encyclopedia! Why anyone would think that'll have anything but negative consequences for themselves I do not know. Internet disagreements are obviously serious business to some people. Don't let them get to you! :( IgorsBrain (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Flame Barnstar

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For well thought out and balanced editing on articles about morality and religion, topics for which there is never a lack of dispute over the 'truth', and for keeping a cool head when subjected to personal attacks – a well deserved Barnstar. LK (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
ANI I'm sure you think your pithy comments are cute, but if you're not going to add anything to the discussion there's no need to post it.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, not sure if it's what you needed or not. Thanks for asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You made a good point. I guess the questions it raises for me are: does the policy page currently help typical editors deal with bullies? If not, what should it say? (Feel free to reply either there or on my talk page.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, done. Again, not sure if it really helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Warning users I already left a warning on ImmortalYawn's talk page. There is no need to add a level 3 warning seeing that he only made one edit on the page. -Reconsider! 01:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Not true. He's the same user as the IP. Just look at the edit history at the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I would warn each IP/user separately, and then file a sockpuppetry report. -Reconsider! 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Point taken, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hellooooo

Looks like you've had an interesting time on Wikipedia recently. Cmiych (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for noticing. It must say something: when I saw your message, my instant reaction was to delete it as another troll. Then, with embarrassment, I realized I had made a mistake, and self-reverted. Oh well. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the craziness you got involved in and wanted to express my sympathies. Gratz on the talk protection btw. Apparentally I haven't pissed anyone off enough to have to go that far yet. :::knock on wood::: Cmiych (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Knock on wood indeed! I wouldn't wish this on anyone, although I have to admit that, as it goes along, I increasingly just find it funny. Some people out there are truly crazy. I'm glad that I edit under a pseudonym. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

caudate nucleus

Hi -- actually the IP was right, that's definitely the thalamus. The putamen is the roundish thing in front of the thalamus; the caudate is the long thin piece circling around the top. I'm not reverting right now just because I hate serial reversion without discussion so much, but may I please? Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? I can't believe I blew that! And to think I used to be an expert! I'll self-revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. And on an anatomically-related note, I asked the IP at basal ganglia to go to the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

unwatching page

I'm unwatching this page. I assume you'll drop me a line if anything needs my moppish eye. tedder (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

December 2009 Another barnstar Warning Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Talk:Crucifixion in art. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC) The only violation of NPA is placing this tag on my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Break in by fat slob in red

John Carter is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

John Carter (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Parody This comment is, itself, a parody. I oppose the Neuroscience Initiative because it's a huge WP:COI violation. If I were trying to parody you there'd be something about a Philosophy Doctorate since no one seems to believe you on that. :) Can we stop the ridiculous farce of running to ANI every time one of us disagrees and actually get some work done now? Cheers, Yzak Jule (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Something Awful

I notice you've been recently editing the Something Awful page, yet you seem to have recently developed a disliking for that particular website in the Crucifixion talk page. Most of your changes seem roughly ok, though one or two (like this one) might seem to be unduly critical. I notice that particular edit's gone now, but please be careful to maintain WP:NPOV in light of your potential bias. --Jonnty (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me about it here. I have also responded at the article talk page. Please AGF about my editing. It is natural that I would have looked at the page, and, as you note, my edits were constructive. I realize that you came to my talk to be helpful, and I appreciate that, but I also note that other editors had best be careful not to preemptively object to my rights to make constructive edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting that this editor subsequently vandalized my user-page. So much for AGF. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry :)

Just accidentally rollbacked you at ANI, have rolled myself back to correct it. Not used to a touchpad yet! DuncanHill (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thank you for telling me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"see also" and columns

It is self-evident that if a "see also" section requires two columns then it is too long. Either one or the other is true. Given your evident ownership problems with the crucifixion article, I expect that you'll undo one or the other of the changes you made to that section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of style guidelines about "see also" sections (WP:SEEALSO) does not correspond to yours. And the rest of your comment is both incivil and wrong. If your concerns continue, you can certainly bring it up in a civil manner at the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO makes no exception for long lists which is not covered by the concerns of {{too many see alsos}}. Columns are generally used on Wikipedia for lists which exceed a length regarded as generally navigable if presented in one column; I've seen no consensus that the multi-column format is appropriate for lists of less than a dozen items. So as I said, the list is either too long (in which case the tag is inappropriate) or it isn't (in which case the columns are inappropriate). I've given you the courtesy of making a choice here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that I do not own the page, notwithstanding your inappropriate comment, my choice is to raise the issue at the article talk page, and invite other editors to comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not having this discussion in three places. Please continue it on my user talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your advice at ANI. Sorry about being rude to you before, too.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. Sincerely, I appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm already there! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and thanks for being nice to me over at the Animal (non-human) Testing 'discussion'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: FSM Lead

I trimmed it a tad. The image makes it look deceptively longer. Mnation2 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)