Template:Archive box collapsible

On October 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Full Circle Song, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikipedia exists due to the contributions of volunteers like you. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry they are only there for about 6-8 hours and I can see from here that you might not have seen it but thousands did. Do keep up the good work Victuallers (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When something such as the writing credits for Greatest Hits Volume II include both Jim McGuinn and Roger McGuinn, do you think it is appropriate to have both names--when they first appear--link to the Roger McGuinn article, since some readers will not know they are the same person? Cbben (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that there is no issue since he is credited as Roger across the board on releases after the name change.Cbben (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Hjort has both Melcher and Knetchel on piano on "My Destiny" and it appears to be an oversight (he mentions them in completely different sections, not within a single personnel listing for the song). I don't own this album except on LP somewhere inaccessible, so could you please check it out and see whether you hear one or two pianos on My Destiny? And if only one, does the style of playing resemble Knetchel's to your ear (Knetchel plays piano on Glory Glory, Tunnel Of Love, Citizen Kane, and I Wanna Grow Up To Be A Politician)? Or does it more resemble Melcher's playing (I Trust)? Thanks! Cbben (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...that's interesting. It does sound a bit like two pianos on "My Destiny" but I don't think it is. The piano in the left-hand channel sounds a bit different to the right-hand channel but they're both playing exactly the same thing...even down to the little grace notes and the nuances of every note. There's also a bit of a double-tracked sound to the piano, like you'd get if there were two pianos playing but again, the piano on each channel is identical except for the EQing - one seems to be quite bassy and the other a bit trebly but I'm convinced that it’s exactly the same performance in each speaker. I think that Melcher's taken a single piano performance and used Automatic double tracking on it, laying one part on each channel. So, he’s made a copy of the part and has sat each one slightly out of phase with each other, EQing one very bassy & the other very trebly and he may have even used some chorus effect on both identical parts in order to thicken up the sound even more. As for who plays this part, my money would be on Knetchel because the Byrdmaniax album sleeve credits say "Knetchel - pianos & organ", where as Melcher is specifically credited with "Piano on I Trust", as if that's the only song he appears on. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then it seems the liner notes are correct; and I've removed the credit to Melcher. Thanks! Cbben (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GA review for Mr. Tambourine Man is currently underway. The initial comments are here: Talk:Mr. Tambourine Man/GA1 if you want to participate. Rlendog (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are aware, but it looks like someone other than you or User:Cbben nominated Sweetheart of the Rodeo at GAN. Not sure how long before it gets to the top of the list though. Rlendog (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon :-) --Philcha (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Music Barnstar
		For a great job on Mr. Tambourine Man - and for your patience with an indecisive reviewer --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my initial sweep to see how the article matches the GA criteria and left some comments. I'm always willing to discuss all aspects of the GA process, though I may not always respond as quickly as would be liked as I am on and off Wikipedia, and when I am on it tends to be for short bursts, and my attention may be grabbed by some other matter. Let me know if you have any further questions. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. We have some favourite albums in common! SilkTork *^YES! 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bob Dylan? Intentionally or not, you have been one of the biggest contributors lately to Bob Dylan articles, so you may be interested in joining. Rlendog (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Byrds - You Don't Miss Your Water.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, actually, I've worked on bringing some articles up to GA and also worked on some music articles, and saw Sweetheart of the Rodeo was up for a GA review, so I thought that I would make those copyedit tweaks when I had time. Nobody asked me to, and I'm not sure I've met/crossed paths w/the user in question. And yes--I'm afraid my tweaks haven't been major; from a copy-edit perspective it looks pretty good. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you did it. You inspired me to start slogging through the rest of it. Do the edits look ok to you so far?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As you can see, I did little w/regard to style, and had very few copyedit changes (and am now done). Mostly wiki specific stuff. Such as they prefer May 2009 over May, 2009. And I inserted a few serial commas and the like, and took out one or two commas.

You raise a good point on the names. I followed the wiki MOS approach used in WP:SURNAME. Though there is a bit of ambiguity here, because while it is clear that in an article on Gram Parsons one should not use his first name again, it is (slightly) less clear that that applies to mentions of him in other articles. I operated under the assumption that it did apply. I don't feel strongly, though (just trying to help improve the article), so I certainly won't revert if you think my changes are incorrect and change them.

One last thing, since you are a major contributor to the article. I have now (present from another editor) a cool thingy that can change date format to May 5, 2009 in the footnotes if you think that would look better/conform better w/the article text. If not, I'll let the 2009-05-05 format remain untouched.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I leave it to you, to do as you see best. As far as the date format issue is concerned, you will probably find your rationale (as well as my contrary one) somewhere among the 110+ expressed here. But again, I defer to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, if you are ever looking for Music GA candidate articles to share your writing schools with, you can find them here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would take issue with your version of music history. The 1930s and 40s was not a time of popularity for country music. Big band music was the overwhelmingly popular genre of the time, followed by jazz, swing, and others. Country was way down on the list, considered "hick" by most, and had a following in only some geographical areas, notably the American South.

I also think you're wrong about the "harmony singing" phrase. It's obvious from the context that it refers to their singing.

As to "schizophrenic", it seems that you're trying to describe their music as split across two genres. Disjointed does mean split,[1] but I'm not sure it's the best synonym. You might find something more suitable at Roget's Thesaurus, Section 44: Disjunction. Perhaps a rephrasing might be better.

You probably think my edits are a matter of personal preference. They're not. All involve issues of grammar, punctuation, and redundant or extraneous wording. As WP:OWN says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. ... If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them."

Good luck with the article! --Sift&Winnow 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the 30s and 40s, "The Grand Ole Opry" did play on some northern radio stations, such as Chicago's WLS. But that was also a time of large migration from the South to the North, particularly to the Midwest, because of the availability of industrial and manufacturing jobs there. It's unclear as to whether the radio audience for country music consisted primarily of transplanted Southerners, or also of Northerners. I'm truly skeptical as to whether New Englanders were ever big fans of the genre. Also, while there may have been a few country radio shows, accounting for 2-3 hours of programing per week, if the remainder of broadcast time was devoted to more contemporary genres, that still places country as a minority interest, and I think, makes the assertion of its popularity questionable. Just my take on the matter... --Sift&Winnow 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will be my pleasure.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point, hopefully more artfully stated than in my edit summary. I believe it would get across what you are trying to say if you said something along the lines of "as a result The Byrds were able to release their recording just two weeks ...". The problem I see with the present language is that "writing the song in 1964" does not ineluctably lead to release "two weeks later". (it could have been two weeks before. or two years later. etc.) Any clearer?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand. Here's a stab. How about "Because Dylan had written the song in 1964 and sung it in concert since May of that year, The Byrds had access to it before it was released on Bringing It All Back Home, and as a result The Byrds were able to release their own recording of it just two weeks after Dylan's version."

• Almost there I think. But comment/question (if you know)--how do you think the Byrds really had access to the song? Just his writing it woud not be enough, as they would have to have heard or read it. I assumed it was because he performed it publicly. You replace that with his having tried to record it--but I don't see (in the article at least) that this recording attempt would have been available to The Byrds. Thoughts? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm now down further in the article, and see how the Byrds got the song. How about: "The Byrds had access to a recording of the song by Dylan and Ramblin' Jack Elliot before it was released on Bringing It All Back Home. As a result, The Byrds were able to release their own version just two weeks after Dylan's."--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to work with what I had written and what was up there ... feel free to fine-tune it (it has a bit more than I proposed above, as I tried to retain existing material). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave the footnotes to you, but two things need fixing. One, a common date format; and two, I believe that rather than, for example, 122-144 references of that sort should be 122-44. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The refs actually have a mix ... something the dates have months written out, sometimes they are all numerical. Are you ok w me running my auto changer to spell out all months?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done!--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I expect I'll leave it alone, unless there is some need for me to return to it. Good working w/you.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, I just wanted to give you the heads up about a couple of changes I've made to your recent edits of the second sentence of the lead section. I don't mean to tread on your toes but this sentence was worded very carefully in order that it was accurate. The album is sometimes (erroneously) labeled as the first country-rock album, but that’s not true. That particular honour often goes to Gram Parson's previous album by The International Submarine Band album, Safe at Home, but I personally would argue aginst that as well. It's a somewhat contentious issue and this is why it's important that any claims about Sweetheart being the first of anything are carefully worded. It was the first album to be widely labeled as country-rock by an internationally successful rock act - not the first major country-rock album because The Band's Music from Big Pink could equally lay claim to that title, since it was released a month earlier than Sweetheart. But The Band weren't an internationally famous rock act at the time of that album’s release, they were pretty much unknown to most of the public at that time, although Music from Big Pink' soon changed all that because it was very successful. Hopefully you can kind of see what I'm saying here. The wording has to be precise. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is good - not toe treading at all! It might be an idea to get some of that information into the article - I don't recall a mention of Big Pink. If there is a reliable source on the development of country-rock which places Sweetheart in context of the other albums, that would be useful. SilkTork *^YES! 09:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read User:Philcha's comment "Having heard both clips, I think the difference in time signature is plain, although I last looked at music theory *&^% decades ago. I think it's significant." as supporting including the comment about the change in time signature in the article. Did you read it differently? I would thus favor including it, but if you have readon to think otherwise it is not essential. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just would like to suggest the idea of a hatnote on this article to the country music band, Sweethearts. All it takes is that lil s to get the wrong one. The article's nominator Mudwater had alerted me to this fine work, and I have enjoyed reading it very much and would hope a hatnote would prevent any confusion for other readers. Let me know if you think this is a good idea. Best Wishes on the review, Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to have a look at the GA discussion and add my thoughts. freshacconci talktalk 14:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork! I just wanted to let you know that unfortunately, my internet conection has gone down at home - which is where I do most of my Wiki editing from. It should be up and running again by Tuesday or Wednesday next week at the latest, I would've thought. I will be checking in between now and then as often as I can but just be aware that I might not be able to respond to any comments that you or Cbben leave on the GA talk page or edits that you make to the article as quickly as I normally would. As I say, this should only last until early next week (hopefully) but I just wanted to give you the heads up. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I am rather occupied in my real life at the moment, so my access to Wikipedia is very limited. I am hoping to take a look at some of the more urgent Wikipedia matters over the wet weekend. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Sweetheart of the Rodeo to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 20:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through your edits and have been impressed with your work. I've also been impressed by the way you have conducted yourself - always willing to discuss matters in a polite and friendly manner, yet ready to explain your position if you disagree. I also appreciate that you have kept myself and Philcha informed of your availability. Keep up the good work! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that "Mr. Tambourine Man" made GA (and in my case Geoffroy's Spider Monkey and in yours Sweetheart of the Rodeo), I was thinking what's next. I think both "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" and "Chimes of Freedom" are in pretty good shape. I did some cleanup work on Baby Blue a few weeks ago, and I would like to nominate that for GA, and then do some cleanup on Chimes to get that in shape for nomination. It may take a while for Baby Blue to get the front of the line, since when I nominated Tambourine Man there were 40 articles ahead of it (and it took about 6 weeks to get reviewed), while there are now 50 articles in the music GAN queue. But Baby Blue should be a simpler article to review than Tambourine Man, so maybe that will help expidite it a bit (Chimes should also be easier to review than Tambourine Man, but probably more complex than Baby Blue). What do you think? Rlendog (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look over the next five days. I should be able to expand with some information. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was so easy to add the image - it's all about how you tag it when you upload it (but, you may already know this). Just writing on your page because I'd seen the request for an image on Gram's page elsewhere (well, images, really, and there needs to be quite a few more...), and I also observed that you've made some recent edits there. Gram rocks! Doc9871 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - am I alone in seeing a young Tom Cruise with a mullet wig on in this particular picture? Amazing, the weird similarity, especially when he actually looks nothing like Cruise. ;> Verifies the need for more images on this page, but at least it's a good start... Doc9871 (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sngle was only released in Holland: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/them/its_all_over_now__baby_blue___im_gonna_dress_in_black/. I don't believe it charted, because it isn't mentioned in any of the Morrison biographies I own. It doesn't mention a release of "It's All Over Now/Dress in Black" in the UK and US Them singles discographies in any of his biographies either, but they don't mention European releases, so it must have been released in Europe. The first appearance was on Them Again on January 21 1966: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/them/them_again/. I have a quote from a couple of biographies that I could add to the article on how Morrison first heard the song and his first live performances as well if you want.

Also here's a link for the cover of the "It's All Over Now/Bad or Good" single, if you find any of the info. on it useful: http://hitparade.ch/showitem.asp?interpret=Them+feat%2E+Van+Morrison&titel=It%27s+All+Over+Now%2C+Baby+Blue&cat=s. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally uploaded the image from the link that you referred me to that KR sent you above. i think that all it says is released in October 1966 by Decca. I don't think I see on that link that it was released in Holland. (Maybe I'm missing seeing this?) This link is all the information that I can find on this single release, but the date of October 1966 and the single's cover was reliable enough for me to believe that it was released as a single in 1966, I just don't know where. I'll try to research this as throughly as I can and let you know. The first time it was released was on the album Them Again on January 21, 1966. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Kohoutec, I see where it says Holland below on the link and Germany for the 1973 single. It probably was never (but I will research further) released as a single in the US and UK. Is this pertinent to the single cover as used on the 'Baby Blue' article? Will it have to be removed and the song infobox put in instead? I'm not familiar with the policy on this.... All the best, Agadant (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info., and I'll let you know if I come up with something after researching - probably this weekend. Agadant (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohoutec: So far, here's what I've found: Here it's listed on Dutch Charts: It's All Over Now Baby Blue but with the 1973 sleeve. This link: Them Again shows "Baby Blue" as one of the songs for the recording session for Them Again. Here's also a mention in J Rogan's book that the arrangement was actually worked out separately before the session for Them Again: "Like everyone else on the pop scene in late 1965, [Tommy] Scott readily acknowledged the importance of Bob Dylan and was eager for Morrison to cover "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue". After several hours work on the Dylan track at Regent Sound, pianist Phil Coulter went home and Scott called a break. 'The number wasn't going down', Scott remembers. 'Van wasn't sure. Then the guys said he didn't fancy it and thought it was cheap because I'd tried to go after the 'Here Comes The Night' tempo.' Scott reconsidered and after picking up a blues riff, a new arrangement emerged, apparently with added piano work from Peter Bardens. Engineer Bill Farley modulated the sound and Morrison provided one of his most expressive vocals." pp. 137-138 Rogan, Van Morrison: No Surrender. It then goes on to say ......"After the preliminaries at Regent Sound, Them were booked into Decca's studios to record their next album. (which was Them Again - my notation) I'll continue looking but info is sparse on the single release for this. Agadant (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info. on how Morrison became influenced by Dylan's songwriting and therefore covered "Baby Blue". Should some info. about the release of the single in both 1966 and 1973 be added when we're more clear about where it was released? Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the song was released as a single in Germany or Holland, the single infobox should be fine. Although English Wikipedia tends to cover events related to English-speaking countries more thoroughly than other countries, that is due to the knowledge and interests of English speaking editors, not a policy matter. If there are reliable sources for the single release dates in Holland or Germany, and any chart information, that would be good to add to the section though. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the inline citation. Is there any other info. that you would feel should be included for Them's version of the song that I could look up? I read somewhere that Morrison changed some of the lyrics for Them's version or something; I could try and find that. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lyric change is in Them's version, I'll look into it and also try and find some 3rd party refs. Cheers Kohoutek Kitchen roll (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to give you the links when I find them, because otherwise I'll forget. I've got a link that says the "It's All Over Now/Bad or Good" was released only in Germany in 1973: http://www.discogs.com/Them-Its-All-Over-Now-Baby-Blue-Bad-Or-Good/release/1932884 and I believe this proves it was first released on Them Again: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=33:hjfqxvrsldde. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Sorry I'm a bit unclear on what you want the reference for, are you looking for a ref. to prove the January 21 album release or the October single release? Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got two sources stating that the album was released in April 1966; one is the allmusic review of the album http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:f9fyxq85ldte and the other is the biography Van Morrison: The Mystic's Music by Howard A. DeWitt, p.66, where as well as saying the album was released in April 1966, it also states that the album charted at #138 in the American Billboard charts.Kitchen roll (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rogan's book Van Morrison: No Surrender, p.608, gives the release date as January 1966in the UK and April 1966 in the US.Kitchen roll (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohoutek, I ran across this Paste magazine list of 50 Best Bob Dylan Covers of All Time. Perhaps you may find it interesting enough to include in the Them section of the article. I'll let you be the judge of whether it would fit it or not....no worries, if not.... Them's cover was #28 on the list of 50 but #1 as a cover of "IAONBB". Cheers, Agadant (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't been able to locate any reference for 1966 Dutch release at this point, besides the RYM one.... will continue looking at every opportunity. Agadant (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that formatting problem, which I didn't find a way to do. -- Gabi S. (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! "We The People (band)" was my first article ever. And, I'm glad it didn't get deleted. Inline references have changed the look of the article. Thanks for the review to make it go live.

Elitropia (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article is more informative with your contribution, now. And, I'll sure consider your suggestions for the next article(s).

Elitropia (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, do you think We The People (band) article should be listed in We the People (disambiguation)? I'm not sure since the band name has the capital T. If so, I could edit immediately. Thanks.

Elitropia (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the article. Thank you for the information.

Elitropia (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to congratulate you on the article passing GA. You put in an amazing amount of work into it and it payed off. Well done. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think the editor reviewing it put up a tag on the wikipedia:Good article nominations page - it was done in about 10 minutes! Are you sure in letting me have some of he credit for getting it to GA? Thanks if you are. Kitchen roll (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Kohoutek :) Kitchen roll (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for getting the allusive chart info. on the Them single in Germany. Kitchen roll (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, love the story! Great that you've cleared that one up. It's really frustrating when you know something to be true on wiki but can't reference it because there's no reliable sources, so I'm glad there was something in the end. I'll see you around Kitchen roll (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated Chimes of Freedom for GAN. We'll have to see how long it takes to move up the queue, since it is starting at #64. I think Tambourine Man started arounf #40, and Baby Blue was something like #52. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]