User talk:J Greb/Archive Jun 2009

"Star Trek" template

Hey man, didn't mean to be obnoxious at Planet X (Star Trek) and Star Trek: The Manga; I think I just forgot what I had and hadn't edited. Anyway, I know the template's not directly associative with those two pages, but both are part of WP:TREK which mandates that template on all Trek pages; that's why I put it there. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 23:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

green lantern

Hi sorry just wanted to apologise about the green lantern page. i was just altering it as the original reference was inaccurate. the only reason i added youtube was because there was a pre-existing link to colledge humour and i misstakenly believed that it was acceptable to post links in that manner. I was just wondering would it be possible to keep a section relating to the fan made trailer on there given the wide amount of attention that it has received but not includint a link to youtube?. Kobol (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thoughtlessly deleting the new Batman film series template

The new template that I created, was quite obviously, much more stripped down and centered than the initial one. Just because one was deleted, doesn't necessarily mean that things can't be tweeked for improvement. Besides, if you want the Batman film series template out of the way (a specific one by the way), then why not get rid of all motion picture franchise templates while you're at it! TMC1982 (talk) 09:03 p.m., 3 June 2009 (UTC)

hrm... lets see...

The old template had 115 links to 96 articles (yup, multiple links in real close proximity...) over 7 groups

The new template had 112 links to 109 articles and 1 category over 6 groups

So... we can stop right there. By no stretch of the English language is that "stripped down". It's "bulked up"... "overinflated"... worse than what was deleted.

- J Greb (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well what the hell would you prefer besides the obvious of it being deleted! You're just judging things based on the fact that since something was deleted once, it in no shape or way can't be improved. And don't take my words that I've used to get a certain point across and twist them around either. The key point was that the template that I proposed was still "lighter" in content than the initial one. TMC1982 (talk) 06:35 p.m., 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What you put up is not "lighter" than what was deleted. You changed the minutia, and added to it. Splitting the hair, that is either as dense or denser.

Now since you and I are evidently looking at the terms "stripped down" and "lighter" differently, would you care to precisely define what they mean for you in this instance?

- J Greb (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're only make things much more difficult to understand by trying to break things down in a technical sense. What difference does it make, I assumed that the main concern with the initial template, was that it was too hefty on info (and not structured in a tighter manner). It just seems that you're really nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking! TMC1982 (talk) 07:09 p.m., 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

In all honesty, I'm trying to work out how we seem to be miss-connecting on what should be extremely simple terms.

"Stripping down" something means making it simpler - less complicated or difficult to use. In the context of fixing a navbox that was deleted because it was bloated (overly complex and containing way too many links) I read "lightened" as also meaning to "simplify".

Purging "X" links from the template only to replace them with roughly the same number of new links doesn't simplify anything. It leaves a template that, while slightly refocused, is just as bloated and hard to use.

- J Greb (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's still going to appear rather bloated or "hard for you to use" because all of the key cast and crew members have been listed! So what else is new from you!? However, it's not as bloated or "hard to use" as before. Yet, you're still not satifisied. Again, you seem to be really nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking (hence, also having to place great emphasis on some of my choice of words). TMC1982 (talk) 09:32 p.m., 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reality checks TMC:

• It is not nitpicking to make sure there is a mutual understanding about the terms used to describe the navbox. It's a way to avoid confusion.
• To say that what you put in place is less bloated is, at best, misguided.
• Double check the TfD, I was consistent there in saying there is a fundamental kernel of a good idea in a navbox for the film franchise. Just not one that tries to cram in 100+ links.

- J Greb (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, how exactly is providing less info (or to make things "less bloated" as you like to put it) misguided!? You said that it was difficult for you to navigate through the original template, so I'm pretty much doing you a favor by trying to make it less difficult to follow. So why don't you get a grip (since you want to give me a "reality check")!? TMC1982 (talk) 04:13 p.m., 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Using "misguided" is AFG. Your tone here and during the TfD has been overly possessive and churlish. It has gotten to the point where it would be valid to say you choice of words was done to deliberately mislead. To hide behind. To lie.

Now, bluntly:

• You did not reduce anything in the template. At best you changed a minor part of the focus.
• Your recreation includes more than the old one.
• {{Batman in popular media}} is, in most cases, sufficient for the film franchise. Cast, crew, production companies, et al is sufficiently linked through the film artless.
• If the 1990s 'box is to come back, it should stick to a minimal inclusion list
  • Principal casts, possibly with the characters, though linking to the single closest article and section.
  • Notable ancillary cast
  • Directors
  • Credited screenwriters

That's it.

IIRC, another editor proposed a similar pare-down in the TfD only to withdraw the suggestion after they got the impression that you would revert on sight such edits.

- J Greb (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The key difference between the Batman in popular media template and the cast and crew categories that you just listed, is that the revised template that I've been trying to propose, is actually inclusive of the latter! And just because I don't agree with you're direction, that automatically makes me "overly possessive" and "churlish" (boy that's a pretty easy way out, don't you think)!? And then you top it all of by basically, calling me a liar!!! And how exactly did I purely and at best, only "change a minor part of the focus"!? You can't have things both ways in terms of saying that the Batman in popular media template is already around (thus making the need for a more specific Batman film series template unnecessary) and yet, object to a remotely smaller scale template than prior! TMC1982 (talk) 04:48 p.m., 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Focus - You dropped the props for staff. Upped the unique links and kept extremely unlikely pairs of articles to jump from (ie Catwoman to the fx studio, Samm Hamm to the Batman & Robin soundtrack, or Clooney to the Joker in other media).

Your preference for the franchise navbox breaks when looked at with WP:NAVBOX. That is why the previous version was deleted as a result of the TfD. That is why your recent version was deleted. And it is very likely why any, if they follow the mold of the first two, future version of it you put up will be deleted. Read WP:NAVBOX. If you have read it before, read it again.

In lieu of a navbox specifically for the 4 films from the 1990, the IPM is sufficient. And it will do until a reasonably succinct navbox is put in place.

- J Greb (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the deletion. We should bear in mind that we don't need a navbox for everything and even if we did we don't try and cram as many links in as possible. A lot of this is covered at WP:NAVBOX and is well worth a re-read in this context.

This seems to be partly an attempt to emulate {{1966-1968 Batman television series}} but that is pretty much a good example of a bad navbox, everything is covered in Batman (TV series) where it is all put properly into the right context. Equally the Batman film series is covered at Batman (film series). It is also overkill, as the franchise media provides a tight and focused navbox which allows quick navigation to the relevant film. (Emperor (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Dick Grayson

I think this always happens.

It does underline that we need Batman (set index), I'll have a look around for resources. (Emperor (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Personally the Nightwing image has niggled me for a while but it is probably easier to let these things ride, rather than open the floor up and getting nowhere. (Emperor (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

I suspect it is not worth making the guidelines too complicated (as then people will just quibble with those) as most times we can reach a consensus. Especially as often they don't really have equal weight, as with Grayson and Robin although it might be consensus is difficult. It might be worth suggesting compromises - I like the idea of going with the earliest of equal weight (as this makes sense because you'd illustrate the costume changes as you go down the article - the infobox image shows the earliest and then the other flag the place the costume changes) or one with them in costume but without the mask (as we have at Eddie Brock) because with some aliases, like Batman, showing them in full suit isn't very enlightening and could potentially lead to confusion (as it wouldn't be with showing people in the Venom symbiote). Those two suggestions seem reasonable to me and could help break most deadlocks. (Emperor (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Blackest Night: Batman

You need to answer soon to deletion page or else you have lost. --Schmeater (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Read my response on the deletion page before the sixth or ninth or else you will lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to lose I mean answer my answer to your answer at Blackest Night: Batman's deletion page. Once more I don't care if you delete the article you just have to make the link between Battle for the Cowl and Blackest Night if you do delete it.

What I mean is you call yourself a comic expert so you should be able to have a strong arguement.--Schmeater (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing it was not a taunt it was just something to keep this debate going I mean you do call yourself a comic expert and I believe that but sometimes you just need to look deeper and see why a person made an article. I thank Emperor for giving me the idea of merging but if you delete this you have to merge into two places Battle for the Cowl and Blackest Night. And do not stay silent you need to respond I really want to know all of your reasons and compare them with mine. Mostly because I think that the longer we keep this arguement going the more narrowed down it will get and we will come to one conclusion and option. If you don't understand this just tell me and I'll make it more clear. --Schmeater (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to merge it to two places, as it is part of the Blackest Night storyline that is the logical place to put it and we want to avoid redundancy (which is a bad idea if we want to expand it and see if it is worth a later split - you don't want identical sections being worked on in two articles). We can merge it to Blackest Night and add a mention of it into the aftermath section of Battle for the Cowl and I'd also favour adding a mention in Batman RIP as it does look like this is a direct result of that. However, all that is required there is a short sentence and a link (and when an interview emerges I'd want to see if we can find a quote that explicitly states the link, as it avoids the possibility of accusations of original research).

And J Greb is right. An AfD isn't about winning or losing, the closing administrator will weigh the arguments and draw the best conclusion based on guidelines and precedents. (Emperor (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't care about winning or losing I just want to know all of his reasons to delete the article and if he can't answer untill the ninth or tenth how am I going to know what I really mean is that J Greb may have a perfect reason for deleting the article that I he has not yet typed into Wikipedia, and if I learn that reason later I'll regret keeping the article. Oh Emperor if it does get deleted you add whatever you want in Batman R.I.P but I'll add what I want in Battle for the Cowl and then why don't you merge it with Blackest Night. It seems fair and all of get what we want if the article is deleted. J Greb will be happy the article is gone. You will be happy it's been merged with Blackest Night. And if it does get deleted I will be happy that a small part of it has been put in Battle for the Cowl. But right now I'm fighting for it to stay. --Schmeater (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

J Greb has stated the reasons this should be removed in his first post to the AfD (and it is my reasons too) it fails to demonstrate notability and even fails verifiability. This is because it was started well before we actually know very much about the comics, the same problems as I've highlighted with your starting Streets of Gotham and Gotham City Sirens - although as ongoing "Bat books" they are probably safe from deletion until we get some information on them. Hounding and badgering J Greb to provide reasons he has already outlined is bordering on incivility (and you are not assuming good faith, I can't see why he'd be "happy" it gets deleted, he has no deletionist agenda), I know you are an enthusiastic fan of the various comics but starting them too early is crystal ball gazing and is liable to get an article deleted (even those that are likely to get restarted closer to the time of their launch). That is the bottom line - if you start an article when there is little information beyond solicitations and no proof of why there should be an article then it is failing a raft of the core Wikipedia guidelines and liable to get nominated for deletion. (Emperor (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Nobody understands. If you make a page seperate for tie-in' you don't have to delete or merge the article. I mean if you want to merge this with Blackest Night let's all go to Battle for the Cowl and put the tie-in's story there. I mean before Battle for the Cowl 1: Battle for the Cowl: Man-bat and Gotham Gazette: Batman Dead?. Between issues one and two: Battle for the Cowl: Arkham Asylum, Battle for the Cowl Commisioner Gordon, Azrae 1, Oracle 1. Between issues two and three: Azrael 2, Oracle 2, Battle for the Cowl: The Underground, Azrael 3, Oracle 3. After Battle for the Cowl 3: Battle for the cowl: The Network, and Gotham Gazette: Batman Alive? Let's merge all of those tie-ins plot to the Battle for the Cowl plot section. It would: expand the article, make sure tie-in pages do not get deleted, and all the information about the tie-ins would be true. When you do that I'll back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 02:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop and take a step or two back.

First thing: Look at what is supposed to be covered by the topic "Batman: Battle for the Cowl". It's either:

1. A limited series consisting of three issues following up "R.I.P" and published in lieu of either Batman or Detective Comics, if not both. Or
2. A story line focusing on the three elder Robins working out who gets to be Batman.

The first has zip to do withe the ancillary titles. It's a very limited topic which set up Grayson for the return of Batman and the new Batman & Robin with Damion. The only thing of not for the other titles is that DC published them all during the same 3 months.

The second may have elements from some of the others drawn in, but it becomes a question of what is actually part of that central story. Oracle: The Cure really has nil to do with the BotC story line, it was used to tie up lose ends from Birds of Prey. The Azrael mini, Suicide Squad issue, and one shots almost all fall under the same situation - set in proximity to the BotC plot line, but not really part of, or essential to it.

Next thing, are any of the minis notable in and of themselves? Only the core one really fits that. The rest... they just aren't. As such, they don't get articles. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Most of the in-story information will wind up in some of the relevant character articles. Some of it, not everything. It's just like each issue doesn't get its own article. That's not what Wikipedia is here for.

Along those lines, about what you added to the BotC article re the Blackest Night mini - do you have a reference for DC, Didio, and/or Johns stating that the mini comes right out of the BotC mini? If not, that really doesn't belong there, unless you are suggesting that everything using Grayson as Batman has to be mentiond in the aftermath section.

- J Greb (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do. One more thing I will tell Emperor to add what he wants on Batman R.I.P. Number three add what you want on the Blackest Night section, because when you delete an article it's good to add it to what it's now redricted from.--Schmeater (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)PS I do not care.

Image advice

Off the comics track but I ran across this and was.. surprised: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (discussion). I would assume there is something that would stop this or infobox images could get ridiculous (and you don't want to see me draw!!!). (Emperor (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

I think most fan art would get shot down as derivative off the hop... But for that one... I've got a feeling the artist lightboxed a photo to get his "free" image. That would either make it derivative or a poor copy of a free image. - J Greb (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kryptonite02.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Kryptonite02.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Karolina Dean

An issue came up here. Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -- A ^talk/_contribs 03:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Impulse2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Impulse2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

re:File:Finalcrisistpb.jpg

I got the image from DC's website.

If we have to use a cover scan, I think it should be something like the Darkseid cover for #4. --DrBat (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, J Greb. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Matty (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comic panel rationale

Hi J Greb, I suggest you create a new template, instead of modifying the existing {{Comic cover rationale}}. Obviously, the templates could be merged at some later date. I think that would be preferable, as opposed to preventing the template from being used during your modification process. PhilKnight (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent changes to {{Comic panel rationale}}

If someone does not put a source, does it default to Scan made by the original uploader?--Rockfang (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently, yes.

The assumption is that if you are uploading a file you either pulled it from a website with a related URL or you scanned it.

On second look, I'm more of a mind to limit it with a switch - "yes" or "scan" noting a scan, any other entry just passing through (ostensively the URL), blank essentially flagging the file as unsourced.

(I'm also tempted to apply that logic to the descriptions field and to {{Comic cover rationale}}.)

Though another concern has been voiced by PhilKnight (see above and his talk page).

- J Greb (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I understand your logic. I think that blank essentially flagging the file as unsourced is a good idea.--Rockfang (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And it now works that way... - J Greb (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dormammu infobox image

Just thought I;d flag this: Talk:Dormammu#Infobox image. I think I have covered the basics but might have missed something. (Emperor (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Abomination (comics)

Problems are starting up there again. Asgardian's again flexing his OWN muscles on it, and I'd like more voices. You weren't thrilled with his revision of the publication history six months ago, and it's not getting better. Please come voice your opinion on the current situation, see if I'm seeing it too harshly, or not. ThuranX (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left my comments over there too. (Emperor (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Given the immaturity shown by the other two editors (and to judge by their comments that is what it is) I was hoping you and others could be the voice of reason here. Some support would be nice, as I'm not seeing these guys coming even close to my level of contributions (a la what Cosmic Cube; Dormammu; Identity Crisis; Black Bolt and recent others were before I got into it). I do this for everyone's benefit, not just mine. Asgardian (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that his [improvements] continue as you walk away. ThuranX (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Robot adding defaultsort to autocatted comics creators

I'm sure you've seen things like this [1] but I thought I should flag it. (Emperor (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Yup... and there's a thread likely related to this on the infobox talk. As far as I can tell, it's really a non-issue. The DS the bot is adding should be the same as the "sortkey" field, so it's just a bit of redundancy, no harm, no foul. I'd say leave 'em until someone shoots the bot, it's better than warring w/ the bot. And IIUC, the bot is also ignoring {{lifetime}}. - J Greb (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Schmeaters Idiot Friend

'Listen I was not involved check my talk page. I don't care this idiot friend of mine, I told him your name J Greb. Now that was my fault. I did not know he would go beyond stupid and do something like that he has his own account that is how he knows about blocking, but I guess he might not have know that it would block the IP. If people were more like him I guess wikipedia would be a swear-fest. It's not. If that were me why didn't I do that when I found out about it.'I require an answer. I want you to delete Hate J Greb, the more of that user I find the more I will tell you to delet him. I'm serious if it was me would I really have an answer. One more thing. My friend is a fast typer. If you want to say anything in decline I will keep telling you the truth. --Schmeater (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) P.S I know my friend is a joyous person , because he's an idiot.

Curt Swan image

Eariler, I mentioned someone had added a drawn image and not a photo (even though there should be some available) in an article I stmbled across.[2]. Now I notice that Curt Swan has a similar drawing in place. I am unsure how widespread this practice is - would it be worth addressing centrally or do you think they are isolated cases? (Emperor (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

hrm... there's a mjor difference between the two - Ntnon uploaded the Swan portrait as a non-free image, even though the licensing may not be bang on and it very, very over sized.

I'm not sure if there is a hierarchy with deceased people as far as art, color art, b*w photo, and color photo. It may boil dow to "Is the a free photo available?" If there is for Swan, then, IIUC, it should be swapped in for the art even though he is dead.

- J Greb (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion?

Rather than being condescending, why don't you actually help better the article? I think you know it was atrocious prior to being reworked. No one else was going to come forward and put in that level of effort, and it now actually says something about the character and his appearances, with accurate sources. If you can find a mistake, by all means point it out and correct it, but please, no more mass reverts and the article was, by all everyone's admission, sub-standard prior to my reworking. Asgardian (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The biggest points of contention:

• You were, and are, still forcing others to guess as to why/what you're changing. "First section - SHB and lead", for example, isn't very informative. It doesn't explain:
  • The image change;
  • Why information was taken out of the 'box; or
  • Why the 2nd was removed and the 3rd lead paragraph was replaced. Interestingly, the 3rd actually being removed was done in a different edit - "2nd section - PH part 1" - which didn't ref any change to the lead.
• The images were knocked down on your talk page version, specifically because non-free images cannot be used that way. 1) You should have noticed that and 2) you could have corrected it as you moved that material instead of blithely, or blindly going along.

Clear enough?

- J Greb (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Next time you're deleting or fixing images I've uploaded, it would be nice if you notified me so I'm not surprised to see my images deleted. Dreadstar † 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No one said permission was needed nor that there was a notification policy, it's just plain good manners. Dreadstar † 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have over reacted. The long and short though is that anything/everything uploaded or added to Wiki is fair game for editing and there are relatively limited situations where notification of another editor is pointed to as a good idea or a needed thing. Everything else falls under the realm of the watchlist.

You want a heads up when images you've uploaded are changed but not put up for IfD or orphaned, fair enough. No guarantees, but fair enough. It is a little odd though that it's the removal of the older versions well after the resizing and edits to the file pages that twigged the note here.

- J Greb (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of the "long and short of it" as you've described, thank you very much. There's absolutely nothing odd here, today the images popped up on my watchlist when they were deleted, I was suprised and had to look to find out what happened and why, that's all. I have no idea if or why I missed any earlier changes to the images. Just ignore my earlier request for out-of-band notifications, I'm sure I'll be able to figure it out myself. Thanks for fixing them, it's been years since I uploaded those. Dreadstar † 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And no apologies necessary, I prolly should have just kept my big mouth shut and appreciated the new images you uploaded... :) Dreadstar † 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem... I think we both led with the "wrong foot". No hard feelings? - J Greb (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely none...! Good job with the images, and I think we're definitely on the right foot now..(or..is that feet?)... :) Dreadstar † 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvements notice board

OK, I finally started an idea I mentioned on the Comics project talk page. :) Feel free to have a go, do whatever you like to make it look better/more functional/whatever, or offer suggestions. BOZ (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)