Portal talk:History

Time Portal‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles Portal This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WPCD-Portal

To-do list for Portal:History: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-12-25

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1

The 'interpretation of records' is Historiography, not History. History is the interpretation of past events. Could an educated administrator please change it? I just fixed it. (I had to comment out the intro from the main page to do it. Sorry about that.) --Ashfire908 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a different colour scheme to the page? Seems a bit distasteful IMHO. Sincerely, JDR 21:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that notion - Ravedave 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too in favour of a change. Any ideas on what colour should be used? Scoo 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) I agree, but I have no clue as to what the colour should be. I love all. 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC) How about greenFranco 04:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the article, basing on Russian sourses. I make a lot of mistakes in English, and this article also needs correction. --Ъыь ^(mailbox)

I would welcome peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Milton Keynes/archive1, please - ideally to make FA on the History portal on 23 January 2007, 40 years after designation. --Concrete Cowboy 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Milton Keynes has achieved GA. Further help with copyediting and "compelling writing" to make FAC would be welcome. A History Project article assessment would also be welcome. --Concrete Cowboy 12:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some advice on Wikipedia:Peer review/Indonesian War of Independence/archive1. Would like to pursue GA and then FA. Any advice would be much appreciated. --Merbabu 13:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Names of foreign rulers on Wilkipedia History pages I wonder why authors of history pages (in English) call many foreign rulers and warlords by English names? Even if their Christian names have English equivalent, it is proper (and probably politically correct) to give their native names. That will greatly reduce the number of Spaniards, Hungarians, Byzantines and other foreigners called John or Peter or Henry. In my humble opinion, this rule should be applied throughout Wilkipedia History section. If foreign names are not acceptable to the authors, why not call all foreigners Joe Bob or something?Vitoldus44 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've recently done a lot of research and posted a lot of info to beef up the Song Dynasty of China article. If someone would like to peer review and give feedback, please do so! Wikipedia:Peer review/Song Dynasty Thanks, --PericlesofAthens 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Old Style and New Style dates seems quite a problem at the moment, very muddled, awkward and biased. Since it is a ref point for many other history articles, it might be worth improving as a priority. --mervyn 09:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point...I agree. Jmlk17 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been considering creating one or more articles about the development of infrastructure and industry in the colonizing period of the American West, ie bridges, roads, mills, mining, lumber, production of goods and textiles. Very broad topic. Can someone point me to existing articles/categories that may be related? Anyone have any other approach to this info? Best wishes. WBardwin 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! That is quite a potential workload. You might want to narrow it down a bit first. For example, try manufacturing first, followed by factories and then production of goods and textiles. try and keep them connected so it stays in a pretty decent lineup, and pretty close. It's late at night here, and I hope that is making sense! Jmlk17 08:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any special guidelines on how the first sentence of an article called "History of ..." should be written? I would be very grateful for any indications. Itsmejudith 22:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is a common sense sort of thing. I may be wrong however. I think that if the article gets its point across and is well-written, it is all okay. Jmlk17 06:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to post a comment here about Wikipedia:WikiProject History. J. D. Redding 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Are you a historian, i.e. one who studies and writes history, and who has a keen interest in writing outstanding articles? Join our fine group by adding the following:[reply]

[[Category:Wikipedian historians]] for the bottom of your user page. Ancheta Wis 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Edict of Worms" has, for the most part, been merged with the articles "Martin Luther" and "Diet of Worms." I believe it should be nominated for deletion or substantially added on to. Franco 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Have at it :). Be bold!!! Jmlk17 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This merge has been done, yet still appears in the "Things you can do" box. Can someone tell a newcomer: a) how the to-do suggestions are updated in this box? and b) where can be found a longer list of history-related merges? (I know where the comprehensive merge list is.) Hoping to help more if I can be pointed in the right direction. Hult041956 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the Portal:History/Things you can do. If there isn't a link to the subpage in question, the easiest way to find out the specific title is to hit the "edit" button, and just remove the editing-related bits of the url. I'd remove the completed task it myself, but I don't want to steal your thunder :) Parsecboy 00:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Parsec. Hult041956 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This probably isn't the right place to advertise this RfC, but since we haven't had too many responses, I am posting on more distant sites. The RfC itself is posted here. Since both statements, the original poster's and mine, in response, are long, you might want to skim through them first. Any help, by way of comments, will be appreciated. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration_of_war#Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II is very faulty (the UK hardly declared war on Finland twice [December 6/7 1941], Nazi Germany did not declare war on the Soviet Union...). Can someone overhaul the entire list pls? --KnightMove 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently worked on the Rosewood massacre article. I rewrote much of it based on two sources, which I know is not enough. However, in this instance when survivors of a violent and intimidating act did not have their stories recorded until 75 years later, it is difficult to find sources at all. One of the sources is actually the most conclusive study done on the topic, and I leaned on that very heavily. If not for lack of sources, I think the article could reach at least a B class status, and probably should be rated much higher, or featured. Any tips you can give me or assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Moni3 14:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Hi, I need some help on what to do next in a content dispute on the Talk:India page, where a recent RfC was concluded between two disputants, user:Rueben lys and I (user:Fowler&fowler). The dispute was about whether certain topics (in the history of the Indian independence movement) were notable for inclusion in the highly compressed history section in the FA India. The history section there has been fairly stable for over a year now, and has exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian independence movement. There is some sympathy for expanding the history section, which perhaps would allow another two to four sentences for the Indian independence movement (i.e. a total of four to six sentences). The dispute is about what other topics merit inclusion in this slightly expanded sub-section. (The statements in the RfC were both long, so you might want to skim through them first.) Here is my statement in the RfC: Statement by Fowler&fowler]] and here is Rueben lys's Statement. The RfC resulted in seven comments (not including those by user:Rueben lys himself); of these, five (see: Comment by Doldrums, Comments by John Kenney, Comments by Abecedare, Comments by Sundar, Comments by Hornplease) were supportive of my position, and two (See: Comment by Sarvagnya, and Comments by Lara bran) that were supportive of user:Rueben lys's position. user:Rueben lys now says that while I have made the case that his topics (for inclusion in the history section) do not get coverage in reliable sources, I have yet to show that they are not regarded to be notable by my sources. I am at the point in this entire process, where I'm fast losing patience and where I feel that I have made an effort to be both clear and logical; in contrast I feel user:Rueben lys has been unfocused (see his long string of comments with eight sub-sections here) and difficult to pin down. I suggested to user:Rueben lys that we consider a second RfC on WikiProject History where, hopefully, some expert editors will be able to weigh in on the evidence. Although he agreed at first, he now says that he would prefer to have the RfC on WikiProject India. Since the first RfC had already been advertised on WikiProject India, I don't see how a second one will help. Could someone please help me with some guidelines? Wikipedia has to have some expert editors in History. How can I find them? And how and where do I have an RfC in order that the experts can weigh in; otherwise, I see a Featured Article – India – becoming the object of highly idiosyncratic edits, well-meaning though they might be. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "This week's featured picture" has been up for a month now, do you think someone could go ahead and change it? I would myself, but I don't know if there's already a designated replacement, or a formal selection process, or anything like that. Parsecboy 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that this is a weekly picture (and article) is brand new, from a very recent edit. Until then, it had just been "Featured picture". Is there a shared committment to changing these more often? Question to long-standing contributors: where is this discussion (i.e., selection of featured article and picture) held? Hult041956 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that since the subpage stated it was a weekly picture, then it would be changed weekly. I could be wrong. If it is decided to not change it, then the subpage needs to be fixed so it doesn't give that false impression. Parsecboy 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I don't know either. It does appear we've missed the schedule in any case. Perhaps some long-time contributors can educate us on what's intended or conventional for this portal page. Hult041956 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the featured picture archives, there actually doesn't seem to be a problem. It's got images scheduled through December. I guess all that needs to be done is change it from weekly image to monthly. Case closed, it seems. Parsecboy 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed these back to "Featured article" and "Featured picture". Let's leave them like that (non-committed) till there's a recurring (monthly, weekly, fortnightly, semi-annually) process that stays on schedule. Hult041956 13:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made changed them to "weekly". How about this; on Monday 22 I'll change the pic and article and I'll change the heading to "weekly" every Monday me or someone else will change the pic and article--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been suggestions on the correct page for suggestions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:History/Featured_picture/Suggest) for a long time now, and nobody seems to comment or anything. I am adding a great picture to at least change it. I figured that it could remain for November as there are only 5 days left in October. Monsieurdl 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Cash and carry covers both the economic wholesale term and the Cash & carry program used by FDR to placate isolationists while helping Britain and France in WWII. These are totally different concepts yet on they are on the same article. I was wondering if anyone could split them and make a disambiguation page? I don't know how disambiguation pages work. Konamaiki 04:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a suggestion page for a featured picture, and yet nobody utilizes it. Nobody posted anything with regards to comments, nobody had anything to say here about my addition, and then all of a sudden like a shot the picture dissapears after almost 2 weeks. No wonder no one regularly contributes here- I find it to be very odd behavior. Does anyone even care to discuss anything around here? Monsieurdl 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems featured pictures and featured articles get queued up on the "Archive" page rather than the "Suggest" page. Odd, as the word archive doesn't suggest the future, at least to me. But that seems to be the case. Also, it looks like your fenestration pic is due to come up in Nov. (That's any minute now.) Hult041956 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a suggest page, always has been, and yet nobody bothers to suggest anything or respond to anything posted there. It seems Feydey just puts all these pictures in slots and never says word one about them or acknowledges any talk page entries. That doesn't seem to me like an effort at collaboration... at least others like Phoenix-wiki and John Carter talk to people. Monsieurdl 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) There are hardly any suggestions over the years, b) the suggestions given are not actually "Featured pictures" c) in October - December 2006 no one changed the FP and I stepped in and started adding new pics to avoid red links. Suggestions are of course always welcome. P.S. I have 2,469 pages on my watchlist and cannot check every new discussion on article talk pages, the best way to reach me is my talk page. Best, feydey 00:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't understand because if you had taken the time to change the picture, I thought you would have checked the Talk page. I can understand avoiding the red links, which makes sense, but I can't understand why my suggestion is out to February, 2008 instead of just moving the others back another month. I'll just chalk this one up as a futile effort and aid elsewhere, no problem. I'm not going to get too worked up about it as Wikipedia is a very, very large place. Good luck. Monsieurdl 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All help with this new article appreciated Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i am a fellow historian and i have recently been in an edit war on the psychohistory page because i believe the single person who is watching over the page really is not allowing the page to express exactly how far out of the mainstream and unpopular psychohistory is, in other words he is presenting it as an established well thought of science. one look at the graph on the page should show you how wrong he is. -ishmaelblues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmaelblues (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an essay titled History vs. genealogy, dealing with what I believe to be one of the great problems with how history is dealt with on Wikipedia. I would very much appreciate comments. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple of Medinat Habu is one of the largest memorial Temples in Egypt. It measures 320m in length (east to west) and about 200m in width (north to south). It was built to commemorate Ramses III, after his death, by orders of the King himself. A huge mud brick enclosure wall surrounds the Temple. This building basically consists of a huge gate, which takes the shape of a Syrian fort, and is decorated with battle scenes of the King’s wars in Syria. After accessing the gate there is a shrine, which dates back to the 18th Dynasty, on the right hand side. There is also a wide-open court that leads to a huge pylon, which has both towers decorated with battle scenes. On one tower the King, wearing the red crown with his “Ka” or “double”, smiting his enemies in front of Re-Horakhty. On the other tower, the King is represented with the red crown of Lower Egypt, smiting his enemies in front of the God Amon Ra. One of the most wonderful scenes engraved on the back of the southern tower, is the oxen hunt, which depicts Ramses III, leading his chariot, hunting wild oxen. Here you will notice that the sculptor was very skilful in showing the pain of the wounded animals. The 1st open court measures 42m long by 33m wide. Its walls are decorated with battle scenes fought against the Syrians and the Libyans. The 2nd courtyard (42m long by 38m wide) was converted into a basilica in the early Christian times, but there are scenes representing religious ceremonies, especially the festival of the Gods Sokker (also spelt Sokar) and Min. Other scenes represent the King, with the priests, making offerings to various deities. The 1st Hypostyle is badly damaged, probably by an earthquake in 27 B.C. It contained 24 columns in 6 rows, surrounded by 16 chapels: 8 to the right and 8 to the left. Among the most important shrines on the right side are the first one, which was dedicated to King Ramses III, chapel number 2, which was dedicated to the God Ptah, chapel number 4, which was consecrated for the boat of the God Sokker, and chapel number 7 which was dedicated to the sacred boat of the God Amon Ra. The chapels on the left side were dedicated to storing the utensils of the Temples, except for chapel number 14, which was dedicated to the sacred boat of King Ramses II, and chapel number15, which was dedicated to the divine boat of the God Montho. The 2nd Hypostyle hall contains 8 papyrus columns in 2 rows. The 3rd Hypostyle hall is similar to the 2nd Hypostyle hall and its ceiling was supported by 8 columns in 2 rows. At the end of this hypostyle hall there are three entrances, the one in the centre leads to the sanctuary where the sacred boat of Amon Ra was placed, the one to the right side leads to the chapel of the God Khonso while the one of the left side leads to the chapel of the Goddess Mut. The Sanctuary at the end of the Temple consists of 3 chapels as mentioned before; it was dedicated to the “Triad of Thebes”, and was surrounded by many side chambers.mor.... http://www.hamdey.php0h.com/ http://www.hamdey.php0h.com/LuxorServices.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamdey2 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have portal Early modern age for european history beetwen 15. and 19. century?--Vojvodaeist 11:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the right place to add Wehrmacht warcrime examples during the occupation of Poland? User:Molobo added a number of massacre sections to various articles about Polish communities (eg Wieruszów County, Gmina Siennica, Gmina Ryczywół, Piątek, Łódź Voivodeship, Kłecko, Trzebinia, Gmina Aleksandrów, Lublin Voivodeship). In these articles, the massacre section is the only history-related section and thus has an undue weight. Also, eg Wieruszow County was founded only long after the resp. time period. Yet, the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) article is maybe too general to include the massacres. Any suggestions? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate articles for War crimes of the Wehrmacht and the broader German war crimes, as well as the more Polish specific Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles. Lastly, there is the List of war crimes, which should probably have the incidents listed as well. For the record, I don't think mentioning the war crimes that occurred there is a violation of UNDUE, unless there is actual dispute that the events took place (and not just by whack-job conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers). Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No dispute (I know of at least). I see an undue weight (or even displacement) of the sections because they have been added to articles covering modern administrative divisions in Poland and/or lack a history section. I am quite sure there must be a better place yet I did not find one. Maybe Pacification operations in German-occupied Poland? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The occupation of Poland seems very relevant. It is indeed somewhat undue if an article about a commune or a village has only a massacre in its history, but on the other hand, it is likely one of the most important events in that place, so while history should be expanded, I see no reason to remove the info.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm trying to create a history portal for the Anglo-Saxon wiki, and I copied the templates over there, but the titles aren't showing up. Would someone be able to show me what I'm doing wrong so I can get the titles to show up? Thanks! --JamesR1701E (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can a stub be made that accurately defines this term and discusses some of the implications of it? thanks... Foofighter20x (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring Wikipedia’s attention to some of the historical information on it’s web site. It is about the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia. The article concerned is in the historical section of Wikipedia (English Version). Historical facts are being presented here which appear to be formulated using unscientific methods. One can only interpret this as to be politically motivated.

The article is uses the information written in the book "De Administrator Imperio" by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire) as it's only reference point. The historic information in the De Administrator Imperio which it cites has long been know as questionable, contradictory and should be treated as such. While other sections of this book have been regarded as genuine by respected Historians.

By using edited sections of De Administrator Imperio the reader comes to the conclusion that Slavic people of that area are of Serbian decent which clearly is not the case. This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region. There are others such as two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians. The sections about the arrival of Serbs seem to be identical to one of stories telling the arrival of Croatians. The chapters read as a retelling of the migration pattern of same peoples as if the author lacked historical information and used it as a template. One of the chapters also used mythic Croatian narratives as fact. Also De Administrator Imperio is describing events that took place three centuries before it was written. With this in mind, information in De Administrator Imperio concerning the Principality of Paganija can be put in serious doubt.

It beggars the question why hasn't other information been represented, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period. Historical perspectives from the Venetian Republic, The Vatican, Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Medieval Kingdom Of Croatia and of course the most important of all the people themselves who live in that region.

Due to the very nature of the Internet and its place in society this misleading information can be used in the future as a propaganda weapon. One can only recall the recent former Yugoslavian Wars and how much pain, misery and death it brought.

One should also ask why is Wikipedia using poor historic scientific methods and is it representing politically biased interests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.59.195 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do much writing about Antiquity, so I can't address any of the content-related points you make. I can tell you that if you have access to better sources, you are more than welcome to edit the article to correct the deficiencies you see. Of course, there may be editors opposed to the changes you wish to make, so you'll have to discuss the issue with them if they do in fact object. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works. Is there anything like this already going on. Would that be ok to do? kilbad (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Paresecboy,

Thank you for your invite to participate in the article concerning Dalmatia/Croatia (Principality of Pagania) . I’ve taken some time to think about this and undertook some research on the weekend to examine the history of the article in question.

I also had a look at other articles that relate to Dalmatia and it’s writers (& their personal Wiki Pages with their Wikipedic symbols and statements). I found some of the authors of these articles to have stated that they support biased and questionable political leanings. For example dictator worship, support for communist regime, anti fascist slogans (World War Two ended more than 1/2 century ago), atheistic declarations and so on. What is this all about? I am not declaring that all the writers are that way inclined but it seems to be that way.

From a western point of view it looks like a gathering of the old Yugoslav Communist guard. Correct me if I am wrong, however weren't they responsible for war crimes, ethnic cleansing, politically imprisonment, torture etc?

I choose not to debate or engage in conversation with any of these individuals and do not want to participate in dialogue that is not based on facts.

To put it succinctly there is a clear contradiction to their stated historic statements. The ethnic demographic of that region is predominately made up of people who have Croatian ancestry and some Italianic ancestry (Roman/Venetian). One merely has to research the Census documents and family names to reach this conclusion. In the face of these facts you still have researchers on your web site contradicting these simple truths. Due to this contradiction, it appears these articles are politically motivated.

There is also the issue of Red Croatia. Byzantine, Roman, German and Venetian chronicles all suggest the existence of Red Croatia which appears to explain the ethnic demographic of the area.

I have researched the “www.britannica.com Dalmatia Region Croatia” web site and they do not mention “De Administrator Imperio Chronicles” as an historical reference for the Dalmatian Region. This omission is obviously due to the fact that this reference is considered contradictory and therefore unreliable for that region. Maybe Wikpedia could consider adopting the same approach as www.britanica.com.

For Wikipedia to retain any sort of respect as a serious and reliable research tool, I would think it would be advisable to address the idea of some sort of academic unbiased screening of questionable material.

Sincerely

123.2.59.195

Hello again. I think part of the problem with that article is that there aren't any inline citations. If there were, we could see exactly what statements/claims are being attributed to the De Administrando Imperio. I do think it would be best to discuss this with the editors who have written the article, even if they are editing from a biased point of view. I suggest this, because once a content "dispute" has been established, you can send the article through the various processes of dispute resolution, which brings the attention of previously uninvolved people. You could, for example, make a request for comment on the issue, which could draw comments or suggestions from many neutral editors. If the case you present is strong, the consensus of these neutral editors will likely support the changes you want to make.

Another option would be to make a report at the reliable sources noticeboard, and make a more formal complaint about using De Administrando Imperio as a source for the article. If the sourcing experts there agree with you, the source can be removed from the article, and any statements that were supported by the text can also be removed.

There are a lot of options here, but they do generally tend to take a lot of time to be seen all the way through. As for general screening of articles, that is usually accomplished through either the formal quality review processes (WP:GA and WP:FA), or through the more informal dispute resolution processes I mentioned earlier. The problem with that is, it's very reactive. There either has to be an editor who nominates the page for one of the quality reviews, or an active dispute over the content of the article. I hope I've helped steer you in the right direction. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]