User talk:BD2412/Archive 4

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Status: Active. (e) Archives: 1 (10/05 - 06/06); 2 (07/06 - 9/15/06); 3 (9/15/06 - 3/12/07); 4 (3/12/07 - 6/28/07); 5 (6/29/07 - 12/31/07); 6 (1/08 - 8/08); 7 (9/08 - 12/09); 8 (12/09-12/11); 9 (1/12-4/16)

English plurals and removal of lang=English[edit]

Why are you removing lang=English from loads of plural pages? You have added lang=English top some pages which was fair enough and a good shout, but to remove from other makes no sense.--Williamsayers79 22:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See my discussion with Connel above. The reason I was adding the language parameter was that the words were not showing up in the category without it. Connel has fixed the template to do this automatically (without the language parameter), so now I'm going back and undoing the damage, as it were. However, it is my understanding that Connel can clean up most of it with a bot, so I started with pages for which I had another task, which is linking the terms in two word plurals. That's done. I'll check with Connel about the bot task. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. And that "bot" task is done now. I didn't see any errors, but I didn't watch closely past "a". --Connel MacKenzie 08:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
OK then, but were still specifying, for example, lang=French for French plurals etc.?--Williamsayers79 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. I added a few of those while I added the English plurals (mostly for Italian plurals ending in "i" which are singular in English). I did not remove any of those. bd2412 T 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Shouldn't these be lang=en, lang=fr? DAVilla 09:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Suffixes by language[edit]

Please explain why you are forcing the community to use a different category setup for Suffixes than for other parts of speech. Also, please explain why you are deleting categories currently under discussion, and without waiting the full week that is recommended before deleting categories. --EncycloPetey 13:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, why are you accusing me of forcing the community to do anything? I had nothing to do with all of the suffix categories initially being placed in Category:Suffixes instead of in Category:Suffixes by language. My only action was to delete a virtually empty and unused category, reflecting the fact that the community had already chosen (for whatever reason) to put all of these suffix subcats in Category:Suffixes. For example, Saltmarsh created Category:Greek suffixes on December 8, 2006 in Category:Suffixes and edited the category several times thereafter, but never changed the category. Category:English suffixes was created in Category:Suffixes on March 8, 2005 by Uncle G, and has been edited multiple times by a half dozen editors including Angr, Jusjih, SemperBlotto, and Stephen G. Brown, but none of them has yet changed that category. Category:Dutch suffixes, created February 17, 2006 by Jusjih in Category:Suffixes, edited by AugPi on February 12, 2007, with no one having changed the suffix cat. Category:Turkish suffixes, created December 14, 2006 by Williamsayers79 in Category:Suffixes. Category:Ido suffixes, created April 20, 2005 by Mike in Category:Suffixes, edited several times thereafter (as recently as February 19) without the category being changed. When you created Category:Suffixes by language on February 9, you neither populated the category (as you have done today) nor suggested to the community that this category should be used instead of the one in which all of the aforementioned editors had chosen to create the aforementioned subcategories. bd2412 T 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
While I didn't have the time when I created the category, I had assumed (I guess) a greater awareness on the part of the community of the POS category structure. Since that time, I have become aware of the large number of inconsistencies, and have begun working toward standardization. If I overreacted, I'm sorry, but your nomination for deletion was so quickly followed through on that I am a bit miffed at the community. No time was allowed for discussion, and those who are deleting categories are not waiting the recommended week before deletion. I understand that this is not your fault. --EncycloPetey 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize as well, I think there was just a miscommunication all around. We're a team, and sometimes a few players don't catch each other's signals - but we're all good guys here. I'll help get the rest of our categories switched over to POS-by-language subcats. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
...and while I'm thinking of it: Thanks for all the work you've done on the plurals. People who do needed but menial tasks don't often get the thanks they deserve. --EncycloPetey 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


All the sources I've checked spell this language as Mende rather than Mendi. I've checked on-line at Wikipedia, SIL, and Ethnologue, as well as in my personal library of print resources on world languages. --EncycloPetey 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... oops. Sorry, thanks for fixing it. bd2412 T 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but φιλοσ has been deprecated to a redirect to φίλος (the final sigma was incorrect). Thought maybe you'd like to know. Atelaes 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If it makes the dictionary more accurate, then it's not bad news at all - thanks for the note, though! bd2412 T 04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Should all of these redirect to the English entry? Normally, we label all entries as an "alternative spelling" or as a "misspelling" rather than creating redirects. --EncycloPetey 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose they should be separate entries, but that would make for an awful lot of "alternate spelling" entries. I'd like to find out how prevalent each version is (although I suspect those with umlauts and slashed o's are for the benefit of heavy metal fans). Probably would be good to find out which is deemed correct in the native Norse! bd2412 T 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[ ] for all the work on the noun inflection templates. Some of those nouns are quite difficult to detect whether or not they are countable. Keep up the good work, thou AWB warrior! :) (Signed Language Lover)

Um... well, actually I'm skipping quite a few of the hard cases for now. Figured I'll do a first run to take out the easy ones, then go back and do research on those that remain. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Plural template[edit]

Thanks for the info re the plural template. That makes things a little easier. -- WikiPedant 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin/Pinyin syllable[edit]

Hi! My code for generating entries was using "Pinyin" as the L3 header; you have been using "Pinyin syllable"; are you entirely comfortable with standardizing on "Pinyin syllable" or is this something we should look at more? (my code is easy to fix ;-). Robert Ullmann 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a conundrum - a pinyin transliteration means nothing by itself (and indeed an errant pinyan transliteration lacking tone usually means nothing at all). It's the equivalent of having an article on the sound "min" because it appears in words like terminal and acumin, except that Chinese is actually transliterated in print as discrete parcels of these sounds. bd2412 T 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


  • ...for the link on my talk page. sewnmouthsecret 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank-you for the Welcome, for noticing sunshine agenda and for your input. I did some clean-up of the wiktionary definition, but think there's just not enough info for a wikipedia article. please let me know your thoughts. Iggynelix 17:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Good morning,

Thank you for the tip on plurals categories. I will follow this from now on and I'm sorry that you had to correct all those entries. Thanks again, Tim W. 17:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for, this is my idea of a good time. ;-) bd2412 T 17:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not related to the above but on the same topic, thank you very much for your strenuous work to put plural templates on A+ and A-. Long I pondered what the best thing to put there would be. Thank you! Danke! Gracias! ありがとうございます! Language Lover 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

? Wasn't very strenuous, really. That's just the rule for such unnatural constructions, I think. bd2412 T 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording of note on tones[edit]

From nang and presumably many other pages:

...often fail to distinguish between the subtle tonal differences

I would say critical tonal differences, subtle only to our ears. DAVilla 09:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, true. I can change that, but I want to keep them uniform, so I'll have to do it by AWB later on. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

‘Small’ changes[edit]

Hi BD, I find it a bit disturbing that you mark all your edits as small. Often they aren’t, e.g. when you create a new page. That cannot be called a small change. So please either uncheck that pref, or be more conscious of it. H. (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But they're minor new pages! bd2412 T 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a new entry, of any sort, should not usually be marked as minor. --Connel MacKenzie 15:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


? --Connel MacKenzie 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, what about it? I didn't add it, but I agree that it's wrong (since bytes is already a plural). Cheers! bd2412 T 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You had changed bytes semi-automatically, prodding the automatic creation of bytess. No biggie, but please try to be more careful. --Connel MacKenzie 15:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That was a fluke. bd2412 T 15:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


When you describe how many times words appear in The Bible; which translation are you referring to? This will have a huge impact on word frequency. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooh... um... ah... dammit. Forgot where I even found the count. bd2412 T 04:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You could probably work out which translation it was by finding perhaps 6 words which were each shown as used 4 - 8 times, and searching for each in multiple translations on a site such as biblegateway dot com (which can search 5 translations at once). I suspect that by the time you've checked the third word, you'll find that only one translation has the right frequency for each. Of course if none of them fit, then either the list, or the biblegateway search engine, must be dubious! --Enginear 14:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Quotations are not in italics (I keep getting edit conflicts trying to fix this ;-)

We use italics for wikt-provided text: made up examples, or translations of quotations.

(And this helps a lot for non-roman scripts, since they are not italicized, the translation is, but it is of course always in English.) Robert Ullmann 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... uh-oh. I've put my quotations in italics in dozens of articles - 'cos, F minus, horribles, deisms, theisms, pandeism, pantheism/Citations, atheisms, noctivagant/Citations, claustrophobias, Banbury story of a cock and a bull, etc. In fact, in retrospect, there's a lot wrong with the formatting of a lot of my older citations. bd2412 T 14:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your work on batlike (and for finally being able to explain "batlike soul" to me, I spent forever trying to figure that one out!!!) I really love your entries, you should get some kind of award :-) I've been starting the grueling task of making "-like" words, starting with animals, a lot of them have subtle figurative meanings and it can be a real pain deciding how far "similar to (animal)" can stretch and whether to put in an explicit figurative sense (froglike for example was pretty difficult and I'm not sure if I got it perfect). Great work, keep it up!!! :D Language Lover 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Variations of 'a'[edit]

Hi, I do not agree that Vietnamese should be in the scripts section. They are not a separate script like Greek or Phoenician is. Rather it is a very elaborate system of diacritics on the existing a. So I’d kindly ask you to consider to move it back into the diacritics section, with an additional ===Vietnamese=== header if you deem that necessary, as I did before (do you ever look at a page’s history before editing?) H. (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) §

Do I ever look at a page’s history before editing? Why yes, sometimes I do. bd2412 T 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good practice. Please do not take it as insulting as I wrote it, sometimes I do not find the right words as a non-native speaker, even though I do my best. Thanks for taking my plea into account, though. H. (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Since the discussion on the BP stalled, I want to settle this thing, if you’re interested, see User talk:Atelaes#Graphemes. H. (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi BD. You moved Old English cu to . Please don't! The diacritics are only used by modern editors; the Anglo-Saxons would just have written cu and so that's how we format OE page-names here. See Wiktionary:About Old English for more. Ta, Widsith 19:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Template for belief systems[edit]

I'm not sure what to do with this rather exortic template. In response, however, I've newly edited 무신론 and 유신론, hoping this sort of thing may be what you want me to bother. Cheers. --KYPark 05:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The difference would be between (as of 일신교) and (as of 일신론). The former means "teaching, religion, church," (hence any of monotheistic Judaism, Christianity, Islamism, etc.), while the latter means "discourse, theory, doctrine," (hence simply monotheism regardless of any specific church). Cheers. --KYPark 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. I will see how I can make that work best in the entry. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Why are you doing that, that way? --Connel MacKenzie 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, nevermind. I think I remember the change, now. --Connel MacKenzie 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanized numbers/tone marks[edit]

I recall a heated debate about the inclusion of tone marks. I assume that has been adequately resolved now? Can you point me to the relevant (recent?) discussion, please? --Connel MacKenzie 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I recall that as well, but the debate was not about tone marks per se, but about complex entries (those with multiple characters). I don't really work with those (yet) so I don't recall how that turned out, except I think it was agreed that we should not have entries like guan1xi5 for guanxi. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The heated debate I was referring to, I'm pretty certain, was before your time here on Wiktionary. It covered the point that if we don't want a particular type of entry, it should not be wikified. --Connel MacKenzie 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. But I'm not wikifying that type of entry. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
But you are. That's why I'm asking where the relevant conversation is... (I don't stay up to date on everything!) --Connel MacKenzie 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. The "heated" debate was about #REDIRECTs. Not the entries themselves. Nevermind. --Connel MacKenzie 16:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
But a link to the discussion would still be appreciated.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't know where that conversation is - I don't know that single-term transliterations with tone numbers have ever been discussed in a negative context, but I have a lengthy archived talk page discussions here here with other Wiktionarians about how to add all of them. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Argh. Looking at the section just below one of your two links above, it seems I was asking you this same question about a year ago. I see that WT:AC was never updated to reflect it. *sigh*. --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, but that's about links to multi-character translations. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Variations of 'pa'[edit]

I've just created the page and noticed that appendix, but I'm not quite sure about where should be included there. So if you could take a look, please do. Thanks!

--Calavera 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Wanted" line of Special:Recentchanges[edit]

You do remember that Wiktionary:Wanted entries is there just to teast NEWBIES into making their first edit, right? --Connel MacKenzie 08:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to remember something that I hadn't heard before - and it's also hard to resist making those blue links red! Cheers! bd2412 T 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

linking to Hanzi tone entries[edit]

I think this should be sorted: these entries have no information in them for the most part. When I did the Han formatting I linked the forms with diacritics because they (shortly thereafter) would contain the information. Linking tone number entries that will at best duplicate that info, but now provide none?

The larger issue is whether we really do want xxxN syllable-tone entries, or just indexes? If we do, there are a number of languages to consider? And we should fill them in. Cheers, Robert Ullmann 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do intend to fill in the information on all the tone-number entries. One task at a time! Cheers! bd2412 T 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
wouldn't it be better to fill in the entries first? (and I do have serious automation for it if you want). But in any case I wish you would stop linking them until we sort an issue out on BP or RFD: that there is no possible way these can meet CFI. People just don't use written Chinese with tone numbers. There is a serious possibility that these will all have to go away, and we'll have to go unlink all the Han char entries. This is why I didn't link them in the first place. (Also, the links aren't particularly useful, since they are adjacent to the form with diacritic, which contains the same information.) Robert Ullmann 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
My philosophy is that everything which can be linked should be linked. I suppose it is a good idea to start filling in the entries - I'll work on it, but if you can automate it that would be fantastic. As for the CFI, I have seen documents using tone numbers instead of tones, and doubtless will see more. Here is an example: [1]. I have no idea what this says, except that there are tone number transliterations of some of the words. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Erm yeah: "transliterations of some of the words". mention, not use. But what happens if/when the entries fail CFI? Are you going to go back and unlink them all? That is why I'm simply saying it should be sorted first. :-) (The automation is easy, it's already written) Robert Ullmann 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Does use/mention even apply to transliterations of individual syllables? That would be kind of like applying use/mention to letters of the alphabet - surely no one disputes that tone numbers are used in some instances to transliterate Chinese characters (which are, by themselves, meaningless to most Westerners both in terms of meaning and sound). But I have realized that you are right on regarding filling in the actual entries - so how do we go about that? bd2412 T 17:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
While Chinese characters are somewhat analogous to English letters, pinyin syllables are not; a pinyin syllable is a sequence of Roman letters with zero or more diacritics and/or a digit at the end. Assuming we have entries for all the Roman letters and diacriticked letters and digits, and these entries mention their use in pinyin, I don't see that we need entries for pinyin syllables that aren't actually used. —RuakhTALK 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no question that Pinyin transliterations are actually in use - just look at Běijīng, Tiānjīn, and Zhāng, Lǐ, and Wáng (virtually every Chinese place name and family name is either one of or a combination of these syllables, see [[w:List of common Chinese surnames]). bd2412 T 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that no pinyin syllables are actually used. I'm just saying that we don't need entries for those pinyin syllables that aren't. For example, I've never seen anyone refer to Beijing as "Bei3jing1". —RuakhTALK 23:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, Bei3jing1 gets over 1,700 Google hits, including this example of the instructive use of tone number phonetics. That I would not have expected, since Beijing is commonly known and therefore no pronunciation guide is needed, really. Note also that some computer programs use tone numbers as they are unable to accomodate diacritics. Ideally, we will eventually add audio files to all of these so that Wiktionary users can distinguish the 1,400 Chinese syllables (bearing in mind that Chinese words are composed of syllables rather than letters, and each syllable can be represented by one of a number of non-exclusive Chinese characters). Cheers! bd2412 T 00:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In theory, I run with the other half of the update code enabled. In practice, there might be a bug or two? ;-) Shall I try it? Robert Ullmann 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you most definitely should! bd2412 T 18:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That went rather well. Good 'bot. See User:Robert Ullmann/Mandarin Pinyin. If we can sort the problem list, then we can look at any remaining inconsistancies. Robert Ullmann 09:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to address at least some of those as I go through the linking process - a side benefit to doing it by hand is that I at least get to look at every one of the entries. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit summaries on a lot of these are odd: "(link Hanzi tones, Replaced: n]] (z → n]] (AWB))" ? Robert Ullmann 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I found it easier to just plug in the first and last letters (as it were) - so for zun4, for example, I'm replacing [[zàn]] (zan4) with [[zàn]] ([[zan4]]) by replacing the n]] (z with n]] ([[z and the 4) with 4]]). This keeps certain Japanese terms from getting swept into the changes. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but that seems like a hard way. Why not match/replace cmn-hanzi.*\([a-z]*[0-9]?\), so you are always on the correct line? (applying the rule 3-4 times) Robert Ullmann 16:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, because sometimes doing things the hard way breaks the monotony! bd2412 T 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Congratulations on finding my second secret page! I will let you know when the third goes into effect. Cheers, Hmwith 12:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A[edit]


First of all, sorry for bringing this to your talk-page, but the discussion page you linked to is a red-link, and I'm not sure if you actually meant for discussion to go there.

There are a few things I'd like clarified about Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A before it is begun. I've put them all below, and individually signed, so you can intersperse replies if you like.

Thanks in advance!

RuakhTALK 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • By "planet" do you mean "classical planet", or does Pluto (which was formerly considered a planet, but is now recognized not to be) count? (For a dictionary's purposes, I think Pluto is as worth including as any classical planet, but this won't actually affect my vote.) —RuakhTALK 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do "continents", "countries", etc. include historical and prehistoric such (continents: Pangaea, Gondwanaland, etc.; countries: Songhai, Persia, Cornwall, etc.; regions: Nubia, etc.)? (I think it should, but again, this won't actually affect my vote.) Also, does it include ancient city-states (Greek, Sumerian, etc.) that were independent, but aren't commonly called "countries"? (I have no opinion on this, but think it worth clarifying.) —RuakhTALK 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Does the "name" of a country refer to its long, formal name ("Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma" ← historical, "Russian Federation", etc.), or to its normal name (Burma ← historical/disputed, Russia, etc.)? (I think the latter, and only the latter, is worth including, except in cases where the long, formal name is actually used sometimes in normal writing — "People's Republic of China" or "PRC", "Democratic Republic of the Congo", etc. — in which case both should be included. Even so, I don't think this will actually affect my vote.) —RuakhTALK 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Does "Reference to the name of a subject country in a document produced by the government of another country shall be sufficient evidence of the name of the subject country in the language in which the document is written" mean that only one citation is needed? So, if the IRS makes a typo and accidentally refers to "Republic of Botzwana", we include "Republic of Botzwana" as an English word? Further, does it allow mentions: "The State of the Vatican City hereby recognizes the rightful independence of the ruling government of Taiwan, and its right to refer to itself as the Republic of China"? (This one might well affect my vote — I think the "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning" criterion is silly, but I don't see why we'd throw out the normal CFI for words — though it's more likely that I'd just vote in support despite this reservation. Even if I do, I see this one as potentially turning this vote needlessly contentious. If you really think that the normal CFI for words shouldn't apply in this case, I'd prefer that that be a separate part of this vote, so we can vote "yes" on everything else without voting for this.) —RuakhTALK 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do micronations count? (w:List of countries doesn't mention them, so I assume they don't, but I thought it worth asking. And don't worry: I really don't know whether they should, and that wouldn't affect my vote; I'm just wondering.) —RuakhTALK 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, if we include a term by one of these criteria, but it has a more common use that doesn't pass, then do we exclude the more common definition? (For example, Naples used to be its own country, the Kingdom of Naples, but today the term more commonly refers to the city of Naples and the informally-defined region surrounding it.) —RuakhTALK 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Copying these over to the vote talk page, will respond there. bd2412 T 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A[edit]

I understand your new proposal is designed to be uncontroversial, but I still have reservations. I think it misses the point, and is aimed in the wrong direction. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I've written some more of my thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)