User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on my talk page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Universities

Hi Tim

Given your edits on universities, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. Warofdreams 15:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Types of universities and schools

User Mark McCaghrey adds:

Thank for your correction regarding Campus Universities not being Red Brick Unversities. I was just about to make the correction myself (as the orginal author) having done a bit more reading about the subject on Wikipedia) but have replaced the reference as they are often refered to as Red Brick even if this is not strictly accurate.

However I want to dispute your deletion of my reference to public/private schools (and also the main public school article). I think the terms are used synonymously and is particularly pertitant to a discussion about higher education. As an ex-public school boy who did not go to Oxbridge I know the bias towards Oxbridge from Public schools, but also am descendents who faced the bias from the other direction.

Is there a form of words which you would be happy with to include the reference to public schools?

I've *never* heard "Red Brick" used to describe the 1960s universities (which is what the article is clearly referring to). "Glass Plate" isn't universal, but "Robbins Report" is a strange term which hasn't caught on due to many not know what it means and "New Universities" has to compete with even newer institutions.

As someone who went to both a public school and a private school that is most definitely *not* a public school, the difference between the two is very clear. "Public school" carries connotations of an outlook, an ethos, a style of teaching, traditions, even vocabulary and so forth and means so much more than just "the parents write a cheque for their offspring's tuition". There are many private schools which do not conform to such traditions - the Etons and Harrows are very much in a classification of their own.

They may be used in general conversations synomously but Wikipedia is against using misleading terms on the basis of generic use - look for example at the reasons why "Charles, Prince of Wales" is used instead of "Prince Charles" which is what he is invariably called, even on some biographies (or even "Charles Windsor"/"Charles Mountbatten-Windsor" one of which I'd guess is what would go on a standard form that just asks for first and surnames).

I can't think of an exact phrasing off hand - to be honest the point at hand is more relevant to other pages than to explaining what a campus university is - maybe the page on Glass Plate universities is better? Timrollpickering 22:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

University of London

Tim - fancy starting the University of London Union article?

A stub has begun - now has anyone got a massive store of ULU history to fill it up? ("Calling a certain member of ULU Council...") Timrollpickering 18:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - fancy taking a look at British Institute in Paris which needs a bit of cleanup and name change I think. Same for St George's Hospital Medical School?

Tim -- nice to see the Category:Alumni of the University of London and Category:Lecturers of the University of London pages. However, I do worry slightly about using lecturers in the title. I deliberately called Category:UCL academics academics as a more inclusive word (on the grounds that academic encompasses researchers, and also points to the role of a lecturer or professor as both a person who lectures and a person who researches -- obviously we do not tend to say faculty in the UK). --stochata 22:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

People associated with universities

Hi Tim. It looks like you set up Category:Alumni of the University of Nottingham and Category:Lecturers of the University of Nottingham categories. I've cracked on with populating the alumni category, but I felt that 'lecturers' wasn't perhaps the best term for the other list. I think 'academics' would be broader / more inclusive. I think I would like to change this, but I thought I would give you a nod first so as not to cause offence! Thanks. Jamse 18:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I should read before I write! I've noticed now that stochata has made a similar point about University of London Lecturers. Searching via Category:People by university affiliation - UK I can spot a few others that are in the same form. I guess it would be helpful to obtain a consensus on which form is preferable and adopt that across the institutions. My preference is for 'academic' rather than lecturer, as it appears is stochata's. Do you have a specific preference for 'lecturer', or was that just what you happened to use on the day? Thanks. Jamse 18:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's kind of gone in a form following usage elsewhere which I've adhered to throughout. I suspect a general think is needed on a standard format for such categories as at the moment there's a lot of variation. Is there anywhere that such a broader decision could be taken? Timrollpickering 00:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

King's Medical Schools

Hi Tim - some advice might be appreciated on how to approach/combine King's College London, GKT School of Medicine and King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry. GKT no longer exists, the medical school is styled as per the GKT talk page describes but the College is very keen on integrating its faculities. Institute of Psychiatry is the most separate at present, hence probably warrants its own page, but should a level of continuity be applied? --Coffeelover 21:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I can see it looks like GKT got renamed in a rebranding so perhaps make it a simple redirect page to KCL's SMD, unless there's masses of history that warrant a separate page to handle the GKT era (I suspect 7 years didn't produce much that's different from now).

For the main KCL page it's probably best to have sections on other institutions that merged in/were taken over and another on academic faculties and departments, with those that merit their own pages (especially anything that has a distinct independent history) linked to as the main article. The set-up for Queen Mary, University of London and Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry is the best example I can think of (I wonder why? ;-) ) Hope this helps! Timrollpickering 01:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Edward VIII

From: Edward VIII of the United Kingdom: (although in Ireland his abdication did not take effect until the next day).

Are you sure you don't mean Northern Ireland? The Republic of Ireland, as the name suggests, has been a republic since 1915 and is not under the rule of the United Kingdom. -- Graham  :) 12:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It only became a Republic in 1949. And I did mean that, the North was and is part of the United Kingdom and so was covered by the same legislation as the rest of the UK. Timrollpickering 12:75 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Leaders of the House of Lords

Hi, I was wondering if you could fill in the gaps we have currently in leaders of the house of lords. Currently there's some big holes in the 1930s (1931-1935,1938-1940,1940-1941), and some other holes in the 18th century. Oh, and I wasn't too sure if Lord Lansdowne was the leader in Russell's first ministry - that was a kind of educated guess. john 23:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My best guesses for the 1930s are:

Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading 1931

Douglas Hogg, 1st Viscount Hailsham 1931-1935

Charles Stewart Henry Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry 1935

Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, 3rd Viscount Halifax 1935-1938

James Stanhope, 7th Earl Stanhope 1938-1940

Thomas Walker Hobart Inskip, 1st Viscount Caldecote 1940

Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, 3rd Viscount Halifax 1940-1941

I'll revise that if I come across anything new. It's possible that the lists of government posts in The Times and /or Hansard include the Leaders of the Houses, so I'll take a look next time I have to get one out. Timrollpickering 05:14, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cripps

I'm not sure what to make of your edits to Stafford Cripps.

• You have deleted "In 1929 Cripps joined the Labour Party and was elected MP for a seat in Bristol" and replaced it with "In 1930 Cripps joined the Labour Party." Why have you deleted the fact of his election to Parliament? If he joined the Labour Party in 1930, then he must have been elected in 1929 while not a party member. I don't think that is the case.

I recall he only joined in 1930. He was elected in a by-election in 1931 primarily so he could fill the "technical" job of Solicitor General. Timrollpickering 10:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• You have deleted "After a few months, however, Cripps resigned from his post and from the Labour Party in protest at MacDonald's policies, and in 1931 he retained his seat as an Independent Labour candidate." Why?

Because it's wrong. He was still a member of the government right up until it fell and was even asked by MacDonald to serve in the National Government. He refused. In the 1931 General Election he stood (and held his seat) as a Labour Party candidate, not an Independent Labour Party candidate. Timrollpickering 10:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• You have substituted" In the 1931, Cripps was one of only three former Labour ministers to hold their seats and so became the number three in the Parliamentary Labour Party, under the leader George Lansbury and deputy leader Clement Attlee." This implies he was still a Labour MP, but I don't think this is the case.

Adam 03:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He was indeed - one of the few to survive the landslide. Timrollpickering 10:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why would a Labour Party member who objected to MacDonald's policies in 1931 have quit the Labour Party? The whole Labour Party objected to MacDonald's policies and kicked him out. john 05:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He quit before MacDonald did his deal with Baldwin and got expelled. Adam 05:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whilst true that some Labour members were deserting in disillusionment with the Labour Government, Cripps wasn't one of them. Timrollpickering 10:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Times (October 29, 1931) reveals that Tim is right on all counts and my original source (Colliers) was wrong. "Trust not to encyclopedias." Adam 10:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Railways

I don't see your name on the Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes voting roll... --Tagishsimon

It is now! ;-) Timrollpickering 20:39, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sterling work on the Stations, Tim. I'd join in your effort, but I'm simply lost in admiration ;) --Tagishsimon

Links to the Conservative Party

I think you should stop changing links for the Conservative party, while the name of the page is under discussion. Mintguy (T) 11:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry hadn't seen that it was shifting. It came because I followed one redirect that led to another and needed fixing, then I looked at the list and saw a whole stack of problems. Timrollpickering 12:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah Adam Carr moved the page, and them left the broken redirects to fester. IIRC he has a habit of doing this kind of thing. Mintguy (T) 12:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Stations

So what exactly was the point in moving 'Birmingham New Street Station' to 'Birmingham New Street railway station' I've never heard it called that before nor any other of the Birmingham stations. Is there any need to add 'railway' to the title of a station unless it is being disambiguated from a bus station or something? G-Man 22:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

This stems from moves to bring consistency across Wikipedia on the names of UK railway stations - the standard format being "Place railway station" for a station that just has just rail (as New Street does at present) and "Place station" for a station with other systems like trams, tubes/metros or Docklands Light Railway. The idea was floated on Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom#Station names - a need for consistency and the idea of copying the model developed for London (as part of WikiProject London) did not meet with objections. Timrollpickering 22:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

East Antrim

I see you just created East Antrim (constituency). Are you sure you don't want to make that just East Antrim? As I write this, there is no article with that title, but there is an article that tries to link to it. See also County Antrim. - dcljr 17:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For all the Northern Ireland constituencies I've done so far I've put (constituency) in them for disambiguation. This is because several of them (and some non-Northern Ireland seats) share names with different boundaries - for example North Down (constituency) is a little larger than the district of North Down (and prior to 1983 the difference was bigger). Antrim could conceivably refer to the district, the county or the pre 1950 constituency - a clear need for disambiguation. I think it works to have the same tag for all constituencies rather than have some with tags.

I'll amend the links to the short form, as I've done with for South Antrim. Timrollpickering 18:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By-election maps

Help yourself, they're GFDL'd.

I can't help thinking that describing constituencies is a bit like painting the Forth Bridge - they will mostly change around 2009.

--Keith Edkins 19:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's rare for a substantial number to be replaced - usually most of the seats survive in either the same or a modified form. It's a bit of a project at first but I reckon it's worth doing since relying on the page on the relevant unit of local government can be messy given different boundaries. Timrollpickering 19:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Robert McCartney - Party Label?

Tim,

Do you have any idea of Bob McCartney's (N Down) party label between his first election in 1995 to the NI forum election in 1996? David Boothroyd claims that he used the 'UK Unionist' label for ballot access and founded the party a year later. He wrote:

He sought election as a 'United Kingdom Unionist'. [...] In May 1996 he and his supporters formed the United Kingdom Unionist Party.

Nicholas Whyte writes that he used the UKUP name all along:

Robert McCartney soon declared himself as the candidate of the newly formed UK Unionist Party...

I've been unsure for a while. At List of UK by-elections currently has him as UKUP. - iHoshie 06:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that at the time there was no legislation defining a political party (nowadays you could use their presence or not on the register as a benchmark) and a candidate could use any or no description on their ballot paper (nowadays a non party candidate can't use a political description). When you have a label that is little more than a vehicle for an individual candidate, possibly with the adherence of a few local councillors, it's highly debatable whether this consituted a party or not.

I recall McCartney at one point after his first election did talk about having to "turn himself into a political party" for the 1996 Forum elections (fought on a party list system) - perhaps the truest is that the political party proper was founded after his election but he used the label in the interim. The campaign literature I've seen was certainly for "United Kingdom Unionist" - the absence of "Party" says nothing as a lot of others don't use it (e.g. the "Conservative candidate). See here [1] Timrollpickering 09:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

McCartney had little time to prepare for the 1995 byelection (the sitting MP died suddenly) and so he fought it as an independent 'United Kingdom Unionist'. He only formed the party in 1996 when the Forum elections were in prospect. The government invited parties and independent candidates to register to fight the elections, and the participants were then named in the primary legislation (see Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations) Act 1996, schedule 1). This forced him to set up a formal political party. Naturally he used the same label as the 1995 byelection for the name of the party. I may have a letter from the party confirming their entry in my book on Political Parties which includes this information, but I do know for certain that he did not appear on the ballot paper in 1995 with the work Party in his description, as I took a contemporary note. Dbiv 14:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Further to this I have just come across McCartney's book "Reflections on Liberty, Democracy and the Union" (2001) which states on page 8:

"In June 1995 I won a Parliamentary by-election in the North Down constituency following the death of James Kilfedder and thus took up a seat at Westminster that I have held ever since. In the spring of 1996 I became the leader of the newly formed UK/Unionist Party. This organisation immediately provided an institutional structure that could support the political precepts cherished by myself .." Dbiv 15:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Official invitation

Hi!

This is a message to let you know that there is now a UK-specific Wikipedia community page at Wikipedia:UK wikipedians' notice board. It would be great if you could come and get involved! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mysteron deserter?

I notice that you were the one who added the theory about Captain Scarlet actually being a Mysteron deserter to the page. Where exactly does this theory come from? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hehe it is in the first episode as I recall (and we are going into the dim and distant depths of my childhood here). Both he and Captain Black were captured and recruited by the Mysterons but Scarlet somehow escaped the clutches of the Mysterons whilst retaining his powers. Sjc 05:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It comes primarily from watching the first episode. Scarlet is replaced the same way that all replacements in subsequent episodes take place, so the man who falls off the plaform is probably still a Mysteron duplicate. Timrollpickering 18:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, okay, I see where you're coming from... but the series acknowledges that Scarlet's body is, in fact, that of one of the Mysteron's duplicates. I believe that it's in "Spectrum Strikes Back" that they show one of the new devices they've come up with to counter the Mysterons, an X-Ray camera, and they use Scarlet to demonstrate how a Mysteron duplicate will show up differently on the camera than a regular object does. The series premise is that, alone out of all the Mysteron's duplicates, he has regained his original personality; your theory makes it sound like (I'm not sure if this is what you meant) he isn't the personality of Captain Scarlet, occupying a Mysteron-made duplicate of the body that used to be his, but instead one of the Mysterons themselves, occupying the duplicate of Captain Scarlet and pretending to be him.

I think maybe we should pull the "Mysteron deserter" theory (after all, no original research) but add in more about what the series establishes about what Scarlet is after his double-death. Sound good? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lord Runciman

In reply to your question to Lord Emsworth, the 1st Baron Runciman was simply Walter Runciman, like his son. Walter Runciman, 1st Baron Runciman would be a better place for him than Walter Runciman (father), though. (Perhaps the creation of the Viscountcy before the inheritance of the Barony could be mentioned in the text of the article, as it explains the presence of "of Doxford" in the title.) Proteus (Talk) 11:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(I have not responded because Proteus has already done so. -- Emsworth 23:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC))

First Labour Hereditary Peer

I notice you have Earl De La Warr as the first hereditary peer to join the Labour Party. I have been doing a lot of research on the early history of the Labour Party in the House of Lords recently. It seems that there was no Labour organisation in the House until the first Labour Government was formed in 1924, but that prior to this point there were six Peers who had in some way supported the Labour Party.

Earl De La Warr, who was born in 1901 and succeeded to the title in 1915, supported the Labour Party from his late adolescence. However, reading the attendance list in the Lords Journals shows he attended only to take his seat on coming of age and to take the oath on the opening of the new Parliament, before he was appointed as a Minister in 1924. His maiden speech was his first from the front bench.

The Earl Russell was a Fabian and a member of the ILP from at least 1919.

The Earl of Kimberley had sent a message of support to the Labour candidate in South Norfolk in the 1918 general election and again in a 1920 byelection (earning him the nickname The Labour Earl in the newspapers). He was re-elected as a Labour candidate to Norfolk County Council in 1922. I would guess he was a party member from about 1920.

Viscount Haldane had spoken in support of Labour candidates in the 1923 general election, but until then had been a supporter of Asquith and the Liberal Party.

Lord Parmoor supported the Labour policy on peace in 1923 general election. The statement in "The British Labour Party" in the biography of his son Stafford Cripps that Parmoor had joined the party in 1921 would appear to be inaccurate from a reading of his memoirs, which state that he had no contact until after the 1923 election.

The 1st Earl of Loreburn (who died on 30th November 1923) had, according to the Oxford DNB, voted for Labour candidate in local election (possibly in 1922).

Is there anything you can add on the matter? I am linking in with a group which is doing more serious research on the history of the Labour Peers. Dbiv 14:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be honest not much - I found that note in a Google search and at first glance it seemed to match (I think I came across the info before a few years ago whilse researching my undergaduate dissertation but have no idea where) so I added it in to help prevent the page being a mere "he held this office then this ofice then this..." but this may well be one of those uncertainties that get put done as "facts" in the absence of anything else and then repeated ad infinitum.

Is there anything in David Marquand's biography of Ramsay MacDonald on this subject? If you want I can check it this evening. Timrollpickering 14:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marquand's tome has been on my bedside for the past few days. He refers on page 150 to Macdonald's friendship with Lady Margaret Sackville "daughter of the Earl De La Warr" in 1912, presumably the aunt of the 9th Earl, but all the other references are to National Labour days when the Earl was one of his keenest supporters in Parliament. Dbiv 15:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Constituencies

I see you've been busy with constituencies. Soemone recently created Parliamentary Constituencies of the UK Parliament which I just moved to United Kingdom Parliamentary Constituencies. I see we already have a category. I have a list of MPs for Lewes going back to 1298, which I got from the library a few weeks ago. It appears that it is possible to obtain complete lists from http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=2218&CATLN=3&accessmethod=5. Mintguy (T) 03:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't bother with C 219, use the Return of Members of Parliament published in 1878 which is a compilation of them. It's in two parts each with two volumes (the list and an index), and covers all Parliaments of England, Ireland and Scotland up to 1885. There are normally some copies on ABE; I have one, and most large UK libraries can find one for you.

C219 contains the original returns which rarely add much of interest unless you want to get to the bottom of a dispute over who was the returning officer. Dbiv 10:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've discovered that you can get most of the volumes of "The History of the United Kingdom Parliament" on CD-ROM -see http://www.history.ac.uk/hop/. A snip at £525. I'll have to check whether any of the local libraries have it. Mintguy (T) 22:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have this CD-ROM and heartily recommend it! It's got the full text of all the sections, except the most recent 1690-1715 and the Josiah Wedgwood volume which is considered superseded. There are some names of MPs discovered since which are added, mostly in the late 15th century. There are also, if you can get hold of them, several books published shortly after the Return of Members of Parliament which used it to provide the Parliamentary history of a local area, giving biographies if possible. W.R. Williams did several of them. Dbiv 00:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Winterton Earldom

It would appear that your sources are correct. The first six Earls Winterton were all named Edward Turnour; I seem to have forgotten to enter one of them in (this problem has been rectified). -- Emsworth 17:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bias

I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Andrew Hunter

I've just reverted your change to Andrew Hunter's party affiliation on MPs elected in the UK general election, 2001. Whilst I've seen the news coverage of his move (eg [2]), Parliament's website still lists his as an Independent Conservative [3], and I think it's probably best to use that as the most appropriate source. — OwenBlacker 01:52, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Assuming the Parliament website is up to date - the POV cynic in me would note that the maintainers have better things to do on a Friday evening than edit pages to keep up with egotistical MPs anxious to get their names in the headlines, especially as he's just formalising an existing move. Timrollpickering 11:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a fair comment :o)

I think I preferred the version that I reverted to the wording you've added, so I'll restore it now, with a link to [4] — OwenBlacker 12:46, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain

Regarding succession, I went and created Template:Succession box three to three. There's a full list of such boxes over at Template_talk:Succession box. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Timrollpickering 19:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've gone and hacked away at Neville Chamberlain a bit -- cleared up some grammar issues. I still need to have a conversation with the word choices (there's a lot of "initially" and "whilst" showing up), but it's somewhat more streamlined now and I don't think I lost any important information. Since you listed it for peer review, I'd appreciate your input. Madame Sosostris 07:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.