Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Hey! Thanks for starting the Haystacks (Monet) GA review. I was curious why when I asked for help] getting Chicago Marathon reviewed, you instead reviewed Haystacks (Monet). Is it expertise related?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Several reasons: 1. I do a better job of reviewing subjects I am interested in or have some prior knowledge. 2. I figured that since you made your request, someone had or will shortly take it up. 3. I usually only take up reviews for backlog reasons when they appear in the backlog template, since if I'm going to expend my energies on subjects which I would not normally review for reasons of clearing the backlog, it's only logical to start with the most dire areas of need. VanTucky ^Talk 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am having a problem with your review. The third sentence of the article says. "The title refers primarily to a twenty-five canvas series (Wildenstein Index Number 1266-1290) begun in the summer of 1890, using that year's grain harvest.". Then, in section three of your review you say ". . . for a series of paintings spanning practically a whole decade. . ." Then, I see you asking me to remove many images and have even removed one yourself that I believe are important. I think the article would optimally have about 35 images in the gallery including all 25 1890 harvest images and all 5 1888 harvest images. Note the WP:LEAD says "The series is known for its thematic use of repetition to show differences in perception of light across various times of day, seasons, and types of weather." Remvoing images makes the juxtapposition unclear. For example, the image you removed is quite important in contrast to the adjacent image. I think you are missing several point. I have never done this, but do you think I could request another reviewer?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems you have not been on WP much of the day. I have asked for a 2nd opinion on the GAC page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I see that my leniency toward Frikkers was in vain -- Samir 02:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the barnstar. It was very kind of you. Take care -- Samir 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am VanTucky on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/VanTucky. Thanks. -- VanTucky ^Talk 02:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Randi demonstrated that magic tricks can be used to do many things reported as psychic phenomena. There's nothing non-NPOV about it. ScienceApologist 02:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit to the lead of parapsychology falsely indicated a redundancy in grammatical construction. However, the addition is important because it establishes the point that the very existence of the phenomenon has no basis in scientific consensus. ScienceApologist 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion nom on Hindukush Kafir people! It was sorely needed! Interestingly enough, Sze_cavalry01 has already started offering up personal attacks on the deletion page. They are all unfounded - just frustrating! Ugh! ₪ ask123 {t} 14:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The delete went through! Thanks for your help in dealing with that pill! ₪ ask123 {t} 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Were you to read edits before reverting them, you would notice that no information was deleted, only consolidated and made more precise. Your comment that Asana is a promotional catalogue for Yoga is absurd. The simple fact is that it a poorly written, misinformed and agenda-driven (Davin7, among others) article which needs some serious work.

You seem to take both yourself and Wikipedia very seriously. Do you want to be associated with an article on philosphy that spells it filosofy...or misrepresents the names and applications of postures so completely? I'd think not. --75.195.130.190 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and validation. It was still a blind edit. --75.195.130.190 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll make sure I do that. Sorry, I just started reviewing articles today.

Tovojolo 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I do know about the signature, but I forgot that one time. Sorry, and thanks for the other tips. --Fabiopl 00:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you review this film for GA status ?

It has been outstanding on the GA nomination page since 12 September 2007.

Thanks,

Tovojolo 08:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing it. We've addressed all of your suggestions. Feel free to review it again whenever you're ready. --Agüeybaná 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. BTW, thanks for the compliments on the table; I did that --Agüeybaná 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding this, you're right; "yanki" is just the Latin American way of spelling "yankee". Please read Yankee#In other parts of the world for more information. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I take exception to your suggestion that my good faith edits are vandalism. Troll my user page if it pleases you, but do not presume to sully my good name with such slurs. I offer you no harm nor inconvenience, and yet, you have taken it upon yourself to scold me like a small child for endeavoring to contribute to the body of human knowledge in no different manner than yourself. I disagree with you sir, but I would dearly advocate for your right to say it were the tables reversed. Respectfully yours, 72.225.36.158 04:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense and joke edits are vandalism. period. VanTucky ^Talk 04:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I see you are very strong in your convictions. If you honestly believe I am a vandal, then explain to me the precise nature of my vandalism instead of leaving harsh comments on my talk page. To date, I have not said a single unkind thing to you or any other user and yet you persist in being unkind to me. I don't understand. All I ask is that you please be civil. 72.225.36.158 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. You've already vandalized after your 4th warning, so you're toast. And don't act coy, adding a picture of a porn shop to a church article isn't helpful, and neither were any of your other edits. VanTucky ^Talk 04:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see same, where I have replied. I think summary failure is unwarranted, and a hold would be a better approach. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look if you would. I've made changes to the article to address some of your concerns. Another user, who has well over a dozen FAs to his credit, so would presumably know a bit about what makes articles good, also did some work and gave his views. Thanks. I still feel it will not be a problem to get the concerns you have with the article resolved within a week. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Sze_cavalry01 has moved the info that was in the "Kafir Characteristics" section of "Hindukush Kafir people" to the article, Nuristani people. I deleted it as soon as I saw it. Also, the info that was moved was not limited to that section alone though. He also copied the "Kafir women" section and others... I'm gonna start pressing on him there -- just wanted to let you know cause this might turn into a similar issue as before. Only difference: as far as I can tell, the rest of the article (minus his/her changes) is fine. ask123 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir, relating to my edits from the other day that seemed to cause you dissatisfaction, I would just like to express my regret that these have caused you grief. I sensed a degree of cynicism in your reply to me. I feel further remorse to have elicited such a negative reaction. As a token of my sincerity, please note that I have refrained from further controversial edits so as not to offend. Thank you for being you. 72.225.36.158 01:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, VanTucky; just a note, because it doesn't seem like the GA Project informs editors passing GAs how to update article history, so they frequently show up in the error category. When you pass a GA and update the {{articlehistory}} template, if you scroll to the bottom of the talk page, the error category will be highlighted in red if the articlehistory is incomplete. I fixed and removed the errors at Talk:Haystacks (Monet). [1] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I make the same mistake often, so I check the error category :-) Hey, are you watching Beagle since Yomangani's gone? I'm watching five of his articles to make sure they don't deteriorate, but I don't know much about beagles. Someone just made a lot of edits, and I restored most to Yomangani's version, since I know how careful he was about the caps issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Yomangani is gone; he never clearly stated why, but I've got my ideas. Several of us split up his 30-plus featured articles and lists to add them to our watchlists so they won't deteriorate. I took Beagle and Laika and a few others, but I'm not a Beagle or Laika expert. I know there's a big deal about capitalization of species, and I've followed those debates, so when someone changed all the caps, I changed them back. And I know Yomangani was careful to set up the section headings in a way that wouldn't be a POV magnet, so I also changed them back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey...I'm guessing you're an admin. How do I get an article protected? Asana appeears to be under constant onslaught by Davin7, and he appears to be edit warring with a floating ISP, who is actually making some sincere difference in the article. D7 is way past 3RR. --Sadhaka 10:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interactive efforts in the review process and your editorial tweaks. You may want to display this somewhere.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Just mentioning this here because, well, I don't think it's sensible to expect you to watch the Peer review page in the hope I'll reply. I've tried to punch up the lead a bit and I think it's a bit more exciting now. I'm not sure about the popular culture section myself - it only appeared a couple hours ago - so I've added a request that reviewers give their opinion on it in the peer review.

Thanks for the help!

Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not look right to me to emphasize on the wooden bowl in another image. - The wooden bowl is already shown in the Japanese equipment image. - Wooden bowl is nothing special between all types of equipments - Chinese / Korean / Japanese are more or less the same. - The key difference to mention is that there are 2 species of Go stones - both side hollow and one hollow and one flat (the most representative on is Yunzi).

And your reasoning seems changing from time to time...

The reason I change the original image is that it is NOT showing a hollow+flat stone. It is not a Yunzi (maybe a very special variation produced by the Yunzi factory, in fact I own one myself but I do not like it). Putting it here is not a good representation of the topic.

Lastly, the image does not violates any copyright rules here. I just link this to the original image shown in the Chinese version, it which it says explicitly that the photo is taken by the author whom does give up the copyright of it.

I am open for further discussion. Horace.wk.chan ^talk 13:44, 14 October 2007 (GMT+8)

Yes, I agree, it's an amusing user box! Feel free to copy it just like I copied it!

Of course I know Bush hasn't directly amended the text of the constitution, he just ignored it with the Patriot Act (which is what is pointed by the user box) and overturned constitutional rights. There is at least one decision where federal courts declared parts of the act uncostitutional (USA_PATRIOT_Act#_note-2). So, at least one court has reverted part of his edits (vandalisms?), which is good. ;-)

--Lou Crazy 11:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the version that needs to be sourced. If you look at it, it may change your mind on the AFD. What has happened here is that Merle (and/or someone sympathetic to him) is trying to cover up some of the dumber things he has done in the past. --Mista-X 05:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ack, got tangled in a ton of edit conflicts. Only completed processes are added to the template; if it's on hold, it's not failed, and shouldn't be added at all. Only failed or listed are added; right now, it's showing as failed. Is that what you intend, or is it on hold? If you're going to do a lot of these, you should get Dr pda's article history script, so you can get the oldids, etc. The old events like peer reviews and AFDs have to be added in order. If it's on hold, you should delete event3 and leave current status blank so it doesn't show as failed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

ah, caught up, read the talk page, see it was previously failed, so it looks good now, should be all set. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi VanTucky, for some reason I've decided to help on the Cillian Murphy FAC. Regarding the blue eyes, I'd ask you to consider the evidence from my research here: Talk:Cillian Murphy#Cillian.27s blue eyes. When I read the article, I actually didn't think it read like a "star struck adoration," but if you point me to passages where the language is a problem, I'd be happy to give them a copy edit from my non-fan perspective. I do assure you that I'm not a Murphy fangirl ;) I also have fixed a lot of the sourcing. Please let me know what else I can do to help get this over the line. I'm not quite as attached to the article as its nominator (or as exhausted from looking at it for weeks), so hopefully I can help us find the middle ground. Thanks for your patience. Cheers! --JayHenry 04:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

pull!

Thanks for your help in getting the good ship SS Christopher Columbus to Good Article status. She would have been sunk without everyone's help, it's really swell how we all pulled together.

anchors aweigh!

This is a much better article now than if you'd passed it when I first thought you should have. Thanks for your high standards, and thanks for the image reorganization. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Anal sex and evolution section that you got rid of in the anal sex article due to being uncited and having POV issues was returned by its author. Looks like we need to address this user about this. Flyer22 18:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am the admin who protected the article. As you are the user who asked for fully protecting it, I'd suggest you to discuss the issue on Talk:Nuristani people; in fact, User:Sze cavalry01 apparingly seems not to be that happy about the page protection. I am monitoring the article, in any case. Feel free to ask me for any kind of help in case you need. --Angelo 19:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review the above article. I've posted a message in the talk page of the article in response to the points you made – let's continue this discussion there. Can I persuade you to reconsider your decision? Cheers, Jacklee 23:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This was rude. That's all, really. A.Z. 04:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This was quite rude. A.Z. 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you mad at me for some reason? A.Z. 04:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was to inform you that it was rude. You could think about it, then apologize. I have seen this happening before. For example, there was the following dialogue on the talk page of Shemale:

I think that saying that her English is terrible was rude and unnecessary. A.Z. 06:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I was kind of worked up. I am finding it difficult to understand all of Lara's arguments but I don't want to inflame the situation. Struck and revised. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read your latest comment. I'm glad you're not mad at me, but saying that you don't want to hear what I have to say and that my opinion is superfluous makes it look like you are. A.Z. 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are proposals to use guinea pig meat as a staple on space stations, but as of 2007 this has not been attempted. Man, the deletionist in you really is quick with that undo button. Have you ever been on a space station!? the_undertow ^talk 05:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You know I was just giving you grief. I actually thought the addition was funny, but it of course OR :) Or is it....? the_undertow ^talk 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you took the time to cite policy instead of send me to AN/I or something. Haha. If you need your coffee warmed feel free to stop by. the_undertow ^talk 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added some lines and citations in the alternative treatmens section on tai chi, yoga and exercise following your advise. I have also nominated the article as FA. If you feel is good enough you will be welcomed to vote it. Garrondo 13:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Knowing you have an interest... I removed a paragraph on Catahoula Leopard Dog, copied it for discussion. Sounds extremely interesting but I cannot find any sources that Catahoulas are in South America. No need to reply. Noles1984 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• This one. He's a pretty famous dude but given his surname is offensive in its entirety, shouldn't someone contact GCHQ and have him change it? - Alison ^❤ 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And there's also this travesty of a disambig page. Ok, I guess you can see what I'm saying here ;) - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all your help. When you get the chance do you think you could look at my question at Durham School of the Art's talk page? Thanks! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks VT! I'm playing catch-up trying to get interviews I transcribed posted; I'm only about five behind now. Glad you liked it. Some Spanish magazine is going to translate it and publish it, so that's good news for Wikinews. Dave --David Shankbone 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the Hamlet review! I was wondering if you could do it soon. We're aiming for FA, and are eager to move through the Ga process to pick up loose ends on the way to FA. Thanks again! Usually you have to wait for weeks. Wrad 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it was next in line anyway. VanTucky ^Talk 22:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we've responded to everything already. Have a look at the talk page. Wrad 23:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your concerns. Please see my comments soon. Wrad 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Many thanks for your review of the Hamlet article. Although you addressed the issue with the synopsis in the context of the GA review, your suggestion has left me with a question still, so I wondered if you'd be able to point me in the right direction? You wrote that you'd prefer to see citations for synopses, but recognised that the project doesn't require them. Well, if they did, what kind of thing would you expect to see cited? Maybe I'm just being a little slow... could you point me to an example or indicate what kind of work you would have cited if you had written it? Many thanks, DionysosProteus 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Sorry if it seems like I'm pressing a point--not for an argument, truly, but to understand your position. I do follow you in the distinction between description and interpretation; though there aren't really objective criteria upon which we might draw the line, since a report by its nature selects and that selection involves interpretation of a kind; but there's probably a common-sense, consensus approach to that. (Re: Hamlet, the synopsis went through a long process of just that kind, to banish every instance that wasn't absolutely factual and supported by the text, as much as we could hope to.) But my question wasn't so much about which parts might need a cite, but rather, suppose we've got an air-tight, painfully objective, non-interpretive description for our summary of the events of the play (or novel or whatever): and you wanted to provide a citation for that, in deference to the most minute guidelines, etc. What would you cite? Are you thinking of a note that points to the relevant part of the original work? Or are you saying that we'd have to go, say, to the Cliff Notes, look at its copyrighted summary, compare and cite that? Or something else? Sorry to pester you with this. DionysosProteus 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say thanks again for the review. I really am sorry if you were offended by my overeagerness. I'd been having a bit of a rough day, and we'd been working on the article together for going on a couple months. It all built up, and I guess you had to pay for it. It was probably a bit out of line, and I think what I wrote came off worse than I intended. I meant it to be a kind of friendly nudge. Anyway, thanks for helping with the process and feel free to continue to comment anytime, of course. It's wikipedia, after all. Wrad 01:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, now that I read it gain it really didn't come off right. Sorry. Wrad 01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you before, but thanks for getting the review done. I know most of the articles put up for GA are bad. I think I've done 5-7 reviews and failed everyone, most quick fail. To avoid that with articles I nominate I have Katr67 copyedit them first and give feedback. As to a heads up, I'll see, though I have a general aversion to preferential treatment, it just looks kinda bad. Also, thanks for the vandalism barnstar, and watch out for the Zorcons! Aboutmovies 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you have moved some images. WP:MOS#Images does not say anything about the {{double image}} template. What do you think of my change to the picture arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar! I'm pleased to know that my work at RFPP is appreciated! :) Acalamari 23:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Click "show" to see my message. What is meant to be and what is not... Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia. If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided. All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. lincalinca 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the see also links you inserted. While I think you inserted them in good faith, there's no connection between Craig and Curtis at all, other than that they're both involved in sex scandals - and we don't "see also" list everyone who's ever been in one. The article's in the category for sex scandals already. I think that's enough. FCYTravis 00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ding dong.... NEXT! . Hope this helps, Qst 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The current queue for sportspersons is about 5 weeks and the election is 3 days away. The time sensitive information will be cleared up by the time the article is going to be seriously evaluated. If you like I will wait until after next Tuesday's election, but was anxious to get this in the queue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Should this be in sportspersons or politicians?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤