This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ginkgo100. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Checking in
Hi Ginkgo,
I figured I'd just drop you a note and see how things were going. Have you had any problems? Is there anything that you're having difficulties with? Probably not, but I figured I would ask. Doesn't hurt, right? :) Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'm getting over the initial shock (I thought my talk page was busy before!) and am settling in. There are a lot of tasks and backlogs to look at and keep me interested. I'll let you know if I have any more questions. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk · e@22:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
RfC - Keltik31
I have started the RfC process for Keltik31; and I would appreciate your comment on my request here, so that my request can meet the two-person threshold. Thank you! -- Weirdoactor00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.
I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.
When someone has passed the line into blatant vandalism, after repeated warnings, sometimes civility goes by the wayside. Sorry if that seems harsh, but this has been going on for days. Fan-196721:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I would note that WP:CIVIL does not contain an exception for vandalism; also that it is not entirely clear that this is a case of actual vandalism. At any rate, I have found not feeding trolls to be an effective policy; incivility often inflames and encourages them. --Ginkgo100talk · e@21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering if this archive is the reason why he is blanking that page. Wouldn't have a move been more acceptable? In this case, it was an oversight by me, but he should have explained things better IMO. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hooray. Looks like he has a few accounts! Oldschoolfreak's user page was blanked by User:24.148.67.72 back in July. Appears that Naradasupreme is the exact same person just by my own personal guess. Oldschoolfreak had reverted the edit to the IP address talk page with the comment, "rv - all of this bickering is childish and needs to end. there are much more pressing matters on Wikipedia than some anon's talk page." Too bad WP policy is a pressing issue. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he won't stop with the edits without explanation. I have since gone and reported this to WP:ANI because the individual is unwilling to cooperate. I thought that I'd let you know about this. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Deon555's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully yesterday with a result of (18/16/8). I'd like to let you know that I won't be running for adminship again, until I am nominated, rather than nominating myself again. Thanks for your support, Deon. — Deon555talkReview22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Adidas
I'm sorry. However, I must say that on the User Templates list, there is a section for removing warnings on the user page (I did not know that no consensus had been reached). And yes, I did misread the history. Diez205:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A bit of an unusual barnstar, but you helped me with a question on the HD four days before my subspecialty exams in gastroenterology (which I've passed, woohoo!). I did get a question on calculating caloric requirements, and your reinforcement of my distant biochemical memory was appreciated. Wanted to say thanks so much! -- Samir धर्म06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
From the diffs and comments, it looked like this person simply botched the reversions (and, ironically, yelled at others for supposedly botching reversions). You're right, WP:AGF definitely applies here. However, if you see evidence that this user is not acting in good faith, feel free to add them back to WP:AIV. --Ginkgo100talk · e@21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Fanstasy information in soy protein article!
Hello Ginkgo100,
Some additional studies since then have indicated that the digestibility and biological value of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value and quality to animal proteins.[5]
This sentence above is false.
First of all, what are the additional studies. The reference is not a study. It is a book. The book explains about digestibility not Biologicla Value.
Second, the biological value of soy is lower at 74 than the other animal protein in the table. According to BV it is not comparible. Please remove this entire weasel sentence per Wikipedia guidlines. I undertand you were trying to help.
First of all, my point is that a content dispute is not equivalent to vandalism. This has become a pet peeve because I see this accusation thrown about very, very often (with many editors all across Wikipedia) with content disputes.
Second, although I have not read the book referenced, I have no reason to believe it states anything other than what the editor says it states. Of course a book can cite studies; in fact, as a secondary source, a book summarizing studies is often a preferable source to the primary research, at least for Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100talk · e@22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the BV soy is 74 which is lower on the table in the soy protein article. So how is it comparible?
The sentence states biological value which the book does not state. The book focused on nutrition and digestibility.
Some additional studies have indicated that digestibility of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value to animal protein. If the sentence was cleaned up it would read like this which does not add much to the protein section.
The anon IP is trying to confuse "biological value" with digestibility to obscure the facts. The phrase biologicial value does not belong in that sentence that is actully contradicting the facts about BV in many studies. Please overview. Thanks, AndyCanada22:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Without seeing the reference itself, I can't comment on whether it's correct or not. In general I assume good faith that when an editor cites a reference, they faithfully represent what the reference says. It often happens in science that studies contradict each other. It usually just means that further, better designed studies are needed. I recommend leaving the sentence. --Ginkgo100talk · e@22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why I've left it as well. I removed it a number of times, and asked the user on their talk page to post a reference. The reference was given after the request. I also assumed good faith since it's obvious that the anon IP is at least attempting to cite their claims. Also, since it's well known that soy protein fortified with the sulfur containing amino acid methionine greatly increases it's biological value (Nutri. Biochem. 7:481-487, 1996), I felt that that the sentence which says - or at least said before AndyCanada edited a few minutes ago (and I suspect that he has not read the reference in question to make these allegations, but that's another issue) - that the BV was comparable to animal sources could be verified. Just adding my 2 cents. Yankees7623:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
The book referenced is about nutritional value not BV. >>> Nutritional Value of Food Protein Products", I.E. Liener; Table 7.7 page 219. In Smith and Circle, editors; "Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology." Published by The AVI Publishing Co. 1972. Westport,Connecticut. <<< Your reference cannot back up your sentence. Please double check or remove. I have already rewritten the sentence.
Please remove your fantansy information. There is no debate to what the BV of soy is. The anon IP has alleged the BV of soy is 96 which is a LIE. Should I add that info back into the article too? Original infromation is not allowed on Wikipedia. I will not let you and Yankees76 gang up on me. I would like to seek abritration on the fantasy information. Please direct me to where I can go for abritration. Thanks. AndyCanada23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
First, it's not "my" information. Personally speaking, I seriously couldn't care less about BV, soy protein, and all the rest. I am involved in this as a neutral third party to a content dispute, having been brought in via... well, I don't even remember anymore how I got involved.
I see no reason, however, to say this information is false, at least not any more reason to say your information is false. By the very fact that we're having this discussion, clearly there is debate about the BV of soy protein. If it's debated, then according to WP:NPOV we must describe the controversy without taking sides.
By the way, I would remind you of the old aphorism, "You can't judge a book by its cover." Certainly you can't judge whether there is information about soy's BV by a source titled "Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology." --Ginkgo100talk · e@23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The policy:
Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Please comply with Wikipedia's policy. Do not attempt to add sentences that violate this policy. Your recent edit on soy protein violates this policy.
Next time you can use the sand box if you wish. Double check your references in order to ensure they validate your contributions. AndyCanada23:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, many of the sources you have provided are less reliable than the one you keep removing. For example, sites such as Life Extension and Turn Up the Heat are commercial sites hawking a product, and therefore less than reliable. I've given you the benefit in the doubt in citing them and would appreciate the same courtesy to the anon IP at the very least. Speaking of courtesy, your comment to me above is not particularly WP:CIVIL and certainly does not assume good faith. Please be careful with your tone. --Ginkgo100talk · e@23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If I'm a bit pale in the face now,
it's because of the amazing support
during my recent request for adminship
and because of all those new shiny buttons.
And if in the future
my use of them should not always be perfect
please don't hesitate to shout at me
any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.
Assume Good Faith???
The anon IP has just gone on a vandalizing streak as we speak!
The fantasy information contributed by the vandal is vandalism.
Yankees76 and I have done a good job with the proteins article.
However, assuming good faith to the anon IP vandal is quackery.
You do realize your sockpuppet case is going to WP:RFCU right? If you are both accounts it will be found out there, and you may even end up being banned. What you're doing now is probably not helping you. Yankees7604:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree. What I am doing now is not helping your case against me. I have removed fantasy info by a blocked anon IP who you think was me. You are confusing everything. How would I know who that anon is? It could have been anyone. Hint. AndyCanada04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... well, you can't delete the account itself. Instead of having the user pages deleted, it would probably be better to redirect them to your new user page. --Ginkgo100talk · e@19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't an attack. I am a member of that team. I just told it how it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnealon (talk • contribs) .
Apologies if it was not meant as an attack page. It certainly read like one. Nevertheless it was deleted also for not asserting notability. Please read this guideline; it will help you with your future articles. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk · e@22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ginkgo, thanks (once again) for your support to my RFA!! Sorry about the plain message as I do not have the template making skills.. Do let me know if I can be of any assistance at all -- Lost(talk)10:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
whyd you delete my karan profile if you wanna email meh email icyboy4@hotmail.com you best put it back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yankeeboy7 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC.}
I've tagged this user as a sock. (the user name, mention of Glen in the edit summary and spelling of "fantasy" as "fantansy" is a giveaway). Just an FYI. :) Yankees7614:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Taking a break
I'm taking a short, informal break for an unknown amount of time. The Wikipedian Republican Party is butchering me over at the Bill Ritter talk page, and I'm getting sick of it. Sorry for the short notice. Take care, keep this place under control. Thanks. Editor19841 (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's really up to you. ArbCom takes months to decide, so you might want to try to avoid that. And I believe Yankees76 already requested my help on this issue regarding [[2]]. I'm not personally familiar with ArbCom or RfC, but if you believe it is a serious enough issue then ArbCom would be appropriate. But if you want a faster and possibly better response, try RfC/user. Sorry I wasn't of much help, but unfortunately, these are two areas which I myself haven't personally ventured off into. Hope the situation works out. =) Nishkid6401:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello! You made the redirect CAT:AB to Category:Administrative backlog. However, I noticed a small mistake you made - you wrote the code as #REDIRECT [[Category:Administrative backlog]] and the redirect itself ended up in the administrative backlog category. :P
For redirects to categories, don't forget to put a colon (:) before the "Category:" part, like this:
Ginkgo100: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/5. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I must sound like a buffoon but I dont know where to edit. Sorry. Do you think I am cut out for constructive edting? I Kn0w I should be bold. I do not want to vandalize anything. Could you "shepherd" me around for a while? I really am not here a lot so forgive me if i am not advailible. Bye! --Ælfwine21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No ear boxing here! There are lots of ways to get started at Wikipedia. One is to browse interesting articles, or articles in a subject area you have expertise in. Look for mistakes, typos, missing facts, or other ways to improve the article. Another way is to visit the stub sorting page and find an interesting topic. Then find articles in that topic and expand them. (A stub is a very short article that needs people to contribute to it.) This link has many more ideas. If you still need help, keep in touch.
I do not want to edit any thing because I see so many vandals and I do not want to be pulled into that raging whirlpool. Also why is my comment strange? It is just a comment right? I feel uncomfortable already don't send me away. Please, I just want to help out not be slung around and thought of as a "merry-andrew".I beg of you, please don't block me yet give me a chance.
Relax, nobody's going to block you! As long as you make good-faith edits, you'll be fine. Most people have never been blocked; only blatant vandals who are obviously trying to disrupt Wikipedia (and folks who violate certain policies, but don't worry about that, new users get a lot of leeway). Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk · e@21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Whew.....
Thank you. Um.. Can you help with certian redirects? Here the name is User:NinzEliza and she wanted to be redirected to User:NinaEliza. well... I tried and it will not redirect. See the history of that page. It has it listed yet the page will not redirect. Please help. --Ælfwine21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ginkgo100, I see that you added a note/warning to this user's discussion page (that I'm sure they don't check, as they are not registered). I wanted to alert you that the vandalism has (continued). I'm relatively new to wikipedia and not sure how much leway is normally provided before having this user blocked or banned? It appears that all edits over the course of 10 months, most actively in Sept-Nov, have all been vandalism. Aphenry06:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I issued a "final warning," so if you see any more trouble from this IP in the next few days, go to WP:AIV and report it there. Generally with static IPs, admins will only block for recent -- and recently warned -- vandalism. For dynamic IPs, blocks are less likely, but this one looks static. --Ginkgo100talk · e@20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi... As I was investigating this I had a feeling you'd ask about this... In this edit you appeared to be intentionally adding misspellings. Looking through the diffs, it looks like you reverted to a previous version with misspellings. Sorry for the confusion! --Ginkgo100talk · e@22:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, for some reason, my spelling sucks when writing Latter Days but not usually anywhere else. I can't work out why. That IP made its changes as I was editing my version, and, thinking it was an edit conflict with myself, I just stuck misspelling ridden version on top. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 22:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As another person with atrocious spelling, I will often cut and paste the article I'm working on into a wordprocessor with a spell checkBalloonman23:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I get the Bearly541 has a problem with what I'm doing. I'm just a guy trying to write an article about Wikipedia users. I'm targeting specific people based on the programs they are involved in who I think could have appropriate and interesting things to say. I am not harrassing them. I post one message. If they want to participate, they respond. If not, they don't. I honestly don't get this big old backlash. My god, I'm trying to write a POSITIVE article informing others about the the behind-the-scenes of wikipedia. I would think that would be something you guys would encourage. FFFearlesss22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps sending e-mail would be more diplomatic. Wikipedians are nothing if not quirky, and some are bothered by such messages; those with e-mail enabled will be less so. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk · e@23:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A vote of thanks from Terence Ong
That birthday wishes made my day this weekend. I celebrated my birthday today instead of yesterday since I still had school, unfortunately. Thanks for the birthday wishes, and I greatly appreciate it. --Terence Ong(C | R)14:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support!
A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo23:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikistress
Hey Ginkgo!
I saw you're a bit stressed. There's probably nothing I can do to help, but if there's something I can do, please let me know! You're a good user, and you don't deserve stress. Can I take some of the workload? What section are you working on that is causing this? Point me in the right direction! :) Firsfron of Ronchester04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It would be this section and this section. The irony is that I visited the coffee lounge for the very first time, unaware of the MfD, mere hours before its deletion. I have a heap of RL stress and Wikipedia is my best therapy, and these events have (temporarily I'm sure) caused my "therapy" to lose its healing powers. I appreciate the concern! --Ginkgo100talk · e@04:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Dar-Ape's Vandal
Thanks for the block there. I've written to Dar-Ape suggesting his page gets protected. He's been being vandalized a lot by what I think is the same Spongebob-lovin vandal. -WarthogDemon04:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to list my pet cat on Wikipedia, he has a unique name and is rather cute.
I know that this might not be correct, trying to add your pet to an encyclopedia but a co-worker and I were discussing this last night. We use Wikipedia many times during a night to prove or refute our debates. I also drive him mental by talking about Fluffalupagus as if he is a person. He bet me a quarter that I couldn't get my damn cat onto Wikipedia, I guess I am a little poorer now.
Not wheelwarring with you or anything, but I've looked over User:Ted87's contribs and really can't see a 3RR violation. Therefore I've unblocked him (with a note that he should avoid coming close to the 3RR in future).
The edits with an unknown intent (perhaps vandalism rv, perhaps content protection, perhaps content adding... only he knows) must be assumed to be in good faith given the lack of other evidence - especially considering that this article is subject to a lot of vandalism at the moment and is also high traffic in general.
If you disagree, feel free to undo me as I'm happy to be wrong (I'm so often wrong as to make it a requirement to be happy about it!)
I agree with you in principle but I have a hard time with item 6 being a revert of item 2. User:Pinerosp made a couple of vandalous (it's a word! :o) edits in between that and could easily have been reverted wholesale by anyone.
What I'm not seeing with Ted is any evidence of edit warring or the like. I can see questionable edits, but they're just questionable: I can assign malign or benign intent to them. AGF, they are benign, IMHO.
In short, I can see no intent to break 3RR, I can see him asking for help on what he thought was vandalism, I can see him being advised to contact the noticeboard, I can see him doing so, and I can see him being blocked. What I can't see is motivation to edit war on this article, intent to do so, or even enough edits to have managed it.
So, no, I'd rather you didn't reblock coz I think you're wrong, but, yeah, please do if you think I'm wrong and I won't complain!
As I say, I'm happy to be wrong and this could be another one of those times! :o)
BTW, I don't know Ted87 from Adam - never crossed edits with him before, not beating a drum for a friend etc. I was just on the unblock category confirming everyone else's blocks! ➨ ЯEDVERS
Hi again Ginkgo... Really, honestly not stalking you, just crossing your path again. Honestly :o)
You blocked User:Jameshetfieldlynching and User:Thug nigga708 correctly (IMHO) but you left the {{username}} warning on their user page, not on their talk page. The warning (despite the misleading advice on the template and the block page) should go on the talk page (in order to generate the orange box) and {{indefblock}} (if you can be bothered) on the user page.
As long as you and your fellows have the upper hand and continue to suppress the expression of fairly simple truths such as "that the Catholic Church prefers the name Catholic Church," you can afford to be civil. Civility is the armour with which you beat down those who have an unpopular truth to speak. RCC is a clear violation of WP policies. Of course the only policy you are interested in is the one on civility. The pursue of what is false in order to suppress others is what is ultimately uncivil.Vaquero10002:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I am dismayed that you think I am part of a conspiracy to rob the Catholic Church, of which I am a member, of its proper title by superimposing "Roman" onto it. If you go through the archives you'll find I spoke out in preference of the name Catholic Church, which I agree is the proper name. My point in contacting you had nothing to do with what terminology I think should be used, but rather to point out that referring to one's rhetorical opponents as "bitter anti-Catholic hounds" whose actions are "wicked" appears to be uncivil. Whether the RCC name violates WP policy or not, violating it again with uncivilpersonal attacks is not the solution. --Ginkgo100talk · e@21:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
i am sry if i hav offended u with my last user name chicswit*** i was just fooling around with my friends and we created it not thinking it would offend people so i am apoligizing for me and for them
Sincerly
Manny/michman42
You didn't offend me, but I blocked that name as being potentially inflammatory. Thank you for changing it, and welcome to Wikipedia! --Ginkgo100talk22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my AIAV for SoLongBaby. While I disagree about it being a content dispute, I'm fine with the decision. It just makes dealing with the problem more difficult, especially when SoLongBaby has been ignoring all discussion on the issues. --Ronz02:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
SoLongBaby has made the same edit six times. Three other users have also made the same edit. These edits have been going on for almost a month now. None of editors doing the removals will participate in the discussions. I think the time for good faith is long past due to their behavior. --Ronz04:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you look at the contribs? They suggest the user is not very familiar with Wikipedia procedures. There are a number of "bad faith" possibilities but insufficient evidence at this point to rule out "good faith" possibilities. --Ginkgo100talk04:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the discussion, but this isnt changing my perspective. I fully expect these users to continue to make the same edits, and continue to refuse all attempts at dialog. If some of the others jump in again with the same behavior, I'll likely make a sockpuppet report, which has already been discussed on the talk page. Until they enter into a dialog, what's the point? --Ronz05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I was surprised your talk page didn't exist yet! I was going to add a "welcome" message, but I saw your contribs went back even further than mine, so that would have been silly. --Ginkgo100talk21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
RfC on Keltik31
I have started the RfC process for Keltik31, and I would appreciate your comment on my request here, so that my request can meet the two-person threshold. Thank you! --Db09922103:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I created the RfC page for Keltik31here. I'm not sure I filled out the information exactly right. Please let me if know if I didn't. Hope to see you endorse it! Thanks! --Db09922121:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That birthday wishes made my day this weekend. I celebrated my birthday today instead of yesterday since I still had school, unfortunately. Thanks for the birthday wishes, and I greatly appreciate it. --Terence Ong (C | R) 14:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
