User talk:Verbo

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Our layout policy (nicknamed "ELE")
• Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed "CFI")
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
• What Wiktionary is not
• FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 13:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit: please have another look at WT:ELE. Use the trans-top/mid/bottom templates for translations. I’m glad to have another Dutch contributor though! Consider putting the {{Babel}} template on your user page, and have a look at Category:Translations to be checked (Dutch). H. (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Surely you meant Dutch, not Danish? The language code for Dutch is nl. If you link a word to [#English|Daniel], it links to "English"; it is only meant for links inside the entry Daniel. And the template {Flanders} will place "Daniël" in the category "Flemish"; use {i-c|Flemish} if you don't mean that.

This is just formatting that will boggle any newcomer. The content was good. Please go on:-)--Makaokalani 10:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note that the word 'turquoise' is categorized under "Gems", not "Gemmology". Likewise, IMHO, 'turkoois' should also be categorized under "Gems" "nl:Gems" and not "Gemmology". And so on for other gems. Also: the new category "Gemmology" should be categorized under some parent category. —AugPi 07:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• That's all the very recent past: gemmology was being created, under Mineralogy, and will logically include Gems Verbo 07:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then you would need to create a new category, "nl:Gemmology", categorized under "Gemmology", which would be for Dutch words relating to gemmology. —AugPi 07:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for all the work you're doing for Dutch entries. Please note the corrections I have made to the format of this entry: (1) an abbreviation is another form of the same word, not a synonym, so it belongs under "Alternative forms", (2) the Synonyms section comes before Related terms (see WT:ELE), (3) the synonyms should be listed on a single line with a {{sense}} header (see (deprecated template usage) listen for a better example of this), (4) both Synonyms and Related terms are level-4 sections, nested under the part of speech. --EncycloPetey 08:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Verbo, I'm not sure whether you'd be interested at all, but I wrote a script that allows you to create the "plural" and "diminutive" forms of Dutch words by clicking twice. I don't know whether you think creating forms is important at all, and it is certainly dull, but if you want to give this a go, visit WT:PREFS and select the bottom option (as described on the talk page). At the moment it supports {{nl-noun}} (and others in other languages), if you want me to make it work with other Dutch templates, just ask. Conrad.Irwin 18:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

One of my maternal great-grandfathers was in an industrial school in the 1861 census. He was taught to be a stonemason. Although he was taught to be industrious, he was not taught to be honest - when he got married, he invented a non-existant father. We will never know who his real father was - a dead-end in my family tree. Cheers. SemperBlotto 09:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• In defence of the I.S., honesty is not normally learned but at best encouraged, although dishonesty can alas often be learned in a 'crime school', such as prisons and plausibly reformatories easily become. Maybe he was in an I.S. of the reformatory type, in which case he was possibly a lost case from the start, or if not alas so deeply hurt by the injustice that he lost all faith in society, as I imagine I might - fortunately my dead-honest dad is alive, known and well worth knowing, our lengthy European family tree free of (known) delinquents. Verbo 12:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am removing your POV edits again. It has nothing to do with "Judeo-Christian" or not.

Please do not continue. Robert Ullmann 14:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, if you want to question the "incompletely assimilated" sense, take it to RfV. Robert Ullmann 15:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please do not insert etymological comments into non-etymological sections as you did here. Etymology is to be placed in an etymology section. --EncycloPetey 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is your source for this? DCDuring TALK 03:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Or, I should have said, how is it different from Etymology 1? DCDuring TALK 04:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

In regards to your readdition of the removed sense of apostle, I'm afraid I must take issue with your reasoning. As a descriptive dictionary, our purpose is not to decide but to document how language is used. I have looked around and have found sufficient references for both capitalisations and, as such, I will let the entry stand. However, please be aware that words do not "deserve" capitals, they are used with capitals. Pomposity has nothing to do with our CFI and isn't an appropriate reason for changing things. Beyond this, I haven't found any references to the sense you added outside of the Mormons. I will therefore change the wording of the sense to reflect this. Please bring it up if you have evidence of its use elsewhere. —Leftmostcat 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Of course evidence of capitalization can be found, for nearly any word, but that's utterly irrelevant, the question is whether it is obligatory for an ecclesiastical titlewhch isn't a noun priper, and the answer systematically NO, not even for the pope, styled His Holiness and in international protocol ranking above all monarchs. The 'pompous' and 'deserve' obviously are neither here nor there, as this is meant only for you and enters nowhere in the reader-addressed text, it's venting anger where it doesn't matter. As for the question whether the Mormons are a unique case, I think not but without certainty a non-explicit wording may indeed by better Verbo 06:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I agree that evidence of capitalization can be found for nearly any word, save for where it is applied to every word in English writing. Most commonly, this capitalization seems to apply to titles. As you mentioned, "pope" is not usually capitalized when saying "the pope" or "a pope". This is not true in the general Christian sense of Apostle, as far as I can see. Most Christian literature refers to Jesus' Apostles, "an Apostle" or "the Apostle". The Mormons use the same convention and it is clearly represented in their literature. As such, the word is being used specifically as Apostle rather than as the title Apostle Joe. Clearly this convention isn't global, which is why I think both Apostle and apostle should have a entry noting the usage.

Two other issues seem to be coming up in this thread: the specific language used in reversion and the question of whether the Mormons are a unique case. The first is that "venting anger where it doesn't matter" does not seem to apply to something which is in the permanently visible record of the wiki. This isn't Wikt policy, now, but it seems to me that the edit summary should be used to describe changes and possibly reasoning. It should not be used for venting anger. As to the matter of whether the Mormons are a unique case, I also think that definitions should reflect reality as we know it. We are documenting uses of the word for which we have evidence, not uses of the word we think might exist. As such, unless evidence is turned up for its use outside of Mormonism, I think the definition should stand as is. —Leftmostcat 18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is not an English word, but you have categorized it as one by placing it in Category:Latin derivations, which is strictly for English words from Latin. Likewise, tiran is not a Latin word (you put it into Category:la:Greek derivations). --EncycloPetey 07:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please observe these changes. The {{etyl}} takes two partameters, the first tells the language of origin, the sceond gives the language of the current entry. Also note that Latin words do not descend from Modern Greek (el), but from Ancient Greek (grc). --EncycloPetey 18:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again, I feel your reversion was partially correct and partially not. First, "it's in another dictionary" is not sufficient rationale for the inclusion of a definition in Wiktionary. Other dictionaries have different CFI and sometimes other dictionaries are wrong. It happens. After some further searching, I've found evidence for two of the senses but not the third. I will clean up the definitions you've included of these two and remove the third, the sense of being reduced in rank. I know of this sense with the past participle usage of "The soldier was broken down to private so fast he didn't have time to blink", but this is specifically a verb form and specifically used with "down". I notice that at least Merriam-Webster Online does not different past participle use and moreover does not have any citations at all. It would be best to avoid copying senses from other dictionaries. They may not be what Wiktionary wants. —Leftmostcat 18:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Since you quote Merriam-Webster, I happen to own two printed versions (still more solid then OnLine), and as I check the other one happens to omit the degraded sense, but I got it from the first edition I consulted, actually the conciser one. It would rather be surprising for such a common word to have all its senses listed in any single dictionary (only Wiktionary would theoretically aim to do so, even if not realistically in the next two centuries), but even I, an allophone, have heard it used at least once, and the image is rendered in many languages since Antiquity: officers have their sabre broken, officials a seal or other insignia... We need contributors to consult serious sources far more, instead of guessing and improvising the amateuristic dribble that now abounds on far too many of our pagesVerbo 13:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid you've failed to address the main point of my post. Being in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a sense does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary. Having heard it used once does not count as an attestation. As for use as an image, this most certainly doesn't count. The sabre is broken in the sense of being rendered to pieces. This is simply a metaphor for being reduced in rank. It is not a use of "broken" to refer to the officer himself as being reduced in rank. This is also not a citation for the sense you have given. As to your final statement, I would suggest care in how you express such sentiments. To my eyes, there's an implicit target to such a statement and such statements are neither warranted nor appropriate. —Leftmostcat 15:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The term broken bone is not idiomatic; the term broken English failed RFD and was deleted. --EncycloPetey 06:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand why you added the "alledgedly...", but consider for a moment that words are not limited to use in non-fiction. In a work of fiction, a character may use their power of their mind to raise a body. So, the edits you have made have limited use of the term levitation solely to non-fiction works, and have eliminated a definition that it commonly met with in fantasy literature. --EncycloPetey 08:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I get your drift, but alledgedly does NOT mean 'wrongly', as in a criminal charge an alledged crime is upheld by say the prosecution and denied by the defense: it always allows perfectly for the (fictional or, alas, real) character and even its audience to believe and act as if the magical mind-power were real or even self-evident. I was by the way thinking from the start of a limbo use: illusionism. Logic doesn't bind fiction anyway, nor can all fictional alternatives be guessed, even less accomodated for, let alone we should adapt descriptions to those. Exception made for purely fictional entities, of course. Verbo 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is clear that we are butting heads and, in the interest of the wiki, I would like to resolve this. The first thing I'll mention is laughter. Your restoration of "laughing" in the definition once more causes a circular definition between "laugh" and "laughter", which means both definitions are somewhat less helpful to the reader. If the previous definition was insufficient, it should have been revised without using this particular word. I tried to make this clear in my edit summary, yet you reverted anyhow. The second issue here is somewhat more serious: you've summarized with "no such copyright", which is simply false. The Merriam-Webster 1913 edition does not seem to include the definition and the version you originally added was a direct copy from the Merriam-Webster, meaning that it is a copyright violation. You've also—I'd say disingenuously, considering the edit summary—changed a single word of the definition you added in restoring it. This does not seem to be sufficient to avoid accusations of copyright. Furthermore, the sense is so vague as to not make sense to me and you've added no attestation. At the very least, this would again put one of your definitions in RFV. As I've stated before, presence in the Merriam-Webster is not sufficient for something to pass our CFI. Your additions need to be verifiable, so if you genuinely discover a new source, it would be very helpful if you found attestations for it.

You have also restored changes at yearn without reason. I consulted with another native English speaker at this wiki before reverting your comments and had agreement that your sense is in no way separate from the previous sense. The usage in English is identical and seems to be entirely connected to the first sense. As I stated, words being separate in another language does not necessarily indicate different senses in English. If you really believe that the sense should be added, then please bring it to the Tea Room or RFV. Simple reversion of edits without reason is certain to cause frustration and resentment with other editors. I can understand that the frequent reversions to your own work may result in similar feelings, but I do this because I feel that your contributions to English words (and specifically to English words) are frequently incorrect, verging on incorrect or unverified and very difficult to verify. I can't and won't try to judge your contributions in other languages, and they seem to me to be valuable contributions to the wiki. However, I find myself frustrated by what I perceive as poor quality contributions which are reverted by myself and by other editors. These are frequently then restored with vague reasoning, without reasoning or even with snide comments which risk causing offense to others. As to the last, I may be over-sensitive, but nonetheless, we're working on a collaborative project and need to consider other editors as well. I recognize that this very post may contain some harsh words, but please understand that I consider you a valuable contributor, but that I feel that specifically your English-language contributions are problematic for other editors and your reactions to reversions unhelpful. At the least, I have confronted you about this before and you have failed to respond or, apparently, to seek resolution. I am reaching out to you in the hopes that we can work together to improve the wiki, rather than against each other. I hope I have made it clear that I do not have a problem with you as an editor but rather with a specific class of edits you have made to the wiki. —Leftmostcat 13:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sense "Function of a natural number". Can you explain a little? What kind of function, are there citations? --Hekaheka 13:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I'm afraid I'm not a mathematician, this came from a (highly reputable: van Dale) English-Dutch dictionary, so I had to translate it from Dutch. Verbo 06:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe this is either an error by van Dale (variance?), or somehow an incomplete translation. I have not been able to find any support for this in English dictionaries or by googling. --Hekaheka 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• My limited maths background inspired me to check from the start it's NOT variance (certainly better known), that has its own van Dale entry. Verbo 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Countship is an archaic / dated term in English. It isn't used in modern speech. All English-language publications of the last hundred years use county instead. --EncycloPetey 14:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see that You change definitions to begin with a capital letter. There is no clear consensus to that, Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#Definitions has "Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop." (my emphasis)

I personally hate it when list items are treated as full sentences. An edit like [1] really annoys me, since it is solely to enforce a personal preference. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 10:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Verbo, I have no problem with your edit or with the general practice of beginning entries with upper case letters and ending them with a full stop (which is not the same thing as construing them as sentences). This is consistent with the style used by the OED, which is considered by many to be the gold standard of dictionaries. As for enforcing a personal preference, it seems to me that is what Leo Laursen is also trying to do by passionately expressing his opposition to such edits. -- WikiPedant 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiPedant, rest assured in this matter: I rarely take notice of personal preferences or unsupported claims, I try to rely on actual sources (reputable reference works are a prime choice, alas I don't have the OED at hand). In this case the effect is inverse: his statement made me more aware, so now I capitalize more noun - and verb definitions, not less. Verbo 05:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Which degree does this refer to (see vrijwilliger) --Jackofclubs 18:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

as the page points out, notably the etymology, -er turns Dutch adjectives into their comparative degree, as in these case meaning 'more voluntary', which can of course also (and often would be) expressed by 'meer' ("more") + the adjective as that construction always applies. Verbo 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, I should reask that question: That page is in Category:Dutch degrees - is this intentional? I'd say it should be in Category:Dutch adjective comparative forms instead. Do you agree? --Jackofclubs 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have changed wijzer to be in that category, but I'll leave the other in your hands. Also, please correct me if I'm misinformed --Jackofclubs 06:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• That's fine, there's only one problem with that category: inflected forms shouldn't be entered separately- Dutch dictionaries either don't mention them or jsut put in the inflection to state the form (as the last consonant may be doubled etc.), never bother with meaning etc. which are identical by definition. I'm not sure what you apparently intend to 'leave in my hands', but I'm NOT the guardian of this CAT, nor of Dutch in general Verbo 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • OK, I've changed the link. However, I'm sure that inflected forms should be entered separately - we allow a lot of inflected forms in other languages. The reason why monolingual dictionaries don't is primarily to save space. --Jackofclubs 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please only add a topical context tag when a word's use is primarily limited to the jargon od that field. For example, (deprecated template usage) neck would not have an "anatomy" context tag, because that word is not limited to use by anatomists. --EncycloPetey 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have misused several templates and section headers, and have used a non-lemma link, in addition to other problems you created in editing the page. Doremitzwr was not wrong to revert. --EncycloPetey 14:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do NOT italicize transcriptions in the Translation section. This makes it difficult or impossible for the bots to clean up that section, and makes it difficult or impossible for many users to read transcriptions with Latin extended characters. --EncycloPetey 13:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Should not contain spanking. Please desist, or you will be blocked. Conrad.Irwin 19:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Participle is a standard part of speech header for Latin. Please do not split it into two separate sections. --EncycloPetey 15:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Verbo -- Regarding your recent edit to crocodile tears, quotations should not be placed in italics. Please see the non-italicized examples at WT:QUOTE. Regards -- WikiPedant 14:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please link etymologies to lemma forms, not to variant forms. Making the user click twice, when once is possible, does not help anyone. --EncycloPetey 14:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again, please desist from edits like this [2], where you have changed the etymology of clamor to show that it is linking to the non-lemma form (clāmāre), rather than to the first-person singular present active indicative (clāmō). The format you are using is inconsistent with that which is shown in WT:ALA. If you want to show that a word comes from the present active infinitive, please follow the example on WT:ALA, "From (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin spērāre, present active infinitive of spērō (“hope, expect”)." Also, you didn't setup the checktrans templates correctly or the translation tables. Caladon 09:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have been around long enough to know that the {{wikipedia}} template does not belong in the Pronunciation section. Please stop repositiong this template in inappropriate locations. When used, it belongs appropriately under the Language header for the language of the Wikpedia it links to. --EncycloPetey 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to revert this revision entirely, but I wanted to discuss it first. It seems clear to me that the quotation cannot feasibly be citing both the nominal and the adjectival usage, even if they are semantically close. However, the way it is translated in English uses it as a noun, whereas you removed the quotation from the Noun section. What grammatical form is the cited use? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well done for managing a polite discussion about this (!)…

1. I’ll take your word for it, it’s an adjective; however, that means that the translation is defective — please correct it so that the English reflects the Dutch term’s grammatical usage.
2. As I’ve said before, derived-terms sections don’t mark a word’s gender; permissible comments are restricted to context tags written within a {{qualifier}} template.
3. See Citations:vacuüm. All the quotations either have Dutch titles or were written by authors registered in the Netherlands (they have the nl domain name) and/or have Dutch names; there’s also one guy from Belgium, but I’ll bet he lives in Flanders. Thus, the {{chiefly|Netherlands}} tag is entirely appropriate.

† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 09:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the entry. It is an important one. I edited with a heavy hand, trying to neutralize it. I may have overdone it. Take a look. DCDuring TALK 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do not replace Latin lemma forms with the present active infinitive of Latin verbs. The present active infinitive is not the primary verb form. --EncycloPetey 13:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

When a term has failed RfV, it must not be re-entered without a valid citation. While we appreciate all the hard work you're doing, your edits are creating a great deal of cleanup and maintenance form the rest of the community. --EncycloPetey 13:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

[3] - Please see the talkpage. --Ivan Štambuk 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why do you keep defining it as a part of English or German given names? I cannot think of any. German surnames, yes, but it's just "hill". In any case words are not defined as part of something, that kind of information belongs to the etymology. Old High German burg already exists. --Makaokalani 12:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are you aware of WT:ACCEL for Dutch plurals and diminutives. It's REALLY simple to use. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please use this because a)what Mg said, b) The format you used in (deprecated template usage) pleegkinderen was rather incorrect. 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you please insert proper ones? See food stamps. DCDuring TALK 20:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

WT:NPOV applies. DCDuring TALK 11:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Verbo -- I have reversed your recent edit to critical, which (a) removed the closing italics for e.g. sentences and (b) changed the definitions to begin with a lower case letter. (a) Although removing the closing of the italics produces no change in the appearance of the entry (since the e.g. sentences end with a line break anyway), it is still bad form. Any hidden formatting commands which alter style should have both a beginning and an ending, for clarity in interpretation of the text during editing and in case future changes to the program code subtly alter the effects these hidden formatting commands produce. (b) There is nothing wrong with beginning a definition with an initial uppercase letter, and many experienced English editors prefer this style. Respectfully -- WikiPedant 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I am giving you a warning; use WT:ACCEL or at least manually format the plural entries correctly or you will be blocked (not indefinitely of course). 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Following is a list of the plurals that you added that are not properly formatted and have not been corrected. Please correct them. I am tired of correcting your persistent errors. It is relatively easy to add properly formatted plurals that appear green by clicking on the green link. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

See Template:plural of, I just did brushturkeys using this template. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

b

   * bannerets
   * bannerettes
   * barge masters
   * bargemasters

c

   * clothes-brushes
   * clove pinks
   * corrasions

d

   * demagogies
   * distrads
   * district administrators
   * draft animals
   * draught animals

f

   * formal borders
   * formal gardens

g

   * grex names

i

   * informal borders
   * informal gardens

i

   * inner cities

m

   * male rods
   * mental states

n

   * night blindnesses

p

   * personal hygienes

s

   * seed leaves
   * seed pearls
   * seed vessels

v

   * viscounties

Hi. Please can you see how I've formatted the entry charmé - this is the correct format, would you be so kind to use this format in the future? --Rising Sun 13:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have to admit I'm considering a block. Unformatted English words is one thing, but when it comes to French and Dutch there aren't even any genders in the article you write. The thing is, you're using other templates so it's not that you're incapable, you're just ignoring us for whatever reason you have. Don't make me do it, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right, I've seen enough I'm beating Mg to the punch and blocking you for 3 days. Next time (if there must be a next time...) I will not be so lenient. 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I have undone your edit at charmé. The header, which we use for all verb forms, is ===Verb===. It is not ===Verb form===. I hope, that after your block will be expired, you can continue editing here on Wiktionary. --Rising Sun 12:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have added a source to the etymology of quagmire that you have added but the source has only part of the etymology. Can you please add further sources of the etymology? --Dan Polansky 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you don't stop, that's what you'll get. Jcwf 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gee, you've been doing lots of good things. What is this drek? Robert Ullmann 07:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply