User talk:Edokter

If you leave me a message, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template.

BLP

Hi; my implication with that was that it implies Billie Piper is returning. Actors departing from Who has been shown to be a hot issue in the past (Christopher Eccleston etc.!) and I thought that it was best to remove such info straight away. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Series 4 page

How does it look? I thought I'd better create it because, come July, those sections will have been removed for not being date relevant any more. Might also help if we go for a featured top too. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK. I hope it doesn's make List of Doctor Who serials obsolete though. You may remember that I opposed Torchwood (series 1) quite heavily for that reason, and I hate the {{Episode list}} template with a passion. :) — Edokter • Talk • 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about expanding the lists to Doctor Who (First Doctor), Doctor Who (Second Doctor), then go along with (series 1), (series 2), etc. (because of the information going down with time). We'd end up with something like List of The Simpsons episodes or List of Lost episodes being barebones (like the current DW list), and the spinout pages being like The Simpsons (season 8) or Lost (season 2). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. That is a big project. Seeing as other TV project follow the same scheme, I'd say it is a good idea, albeit requiring more looking after. Is there enough information available (beside plot summaries) to fill out those series 1-3 (not mo mention the classic series)? And could we possibly not use {{episode list}}? — Edokter • Talk • 21:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what do you think about coloring the main list table as in List of Torchwood episodes? — Edokter • Talk • 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't my idea though... Do you think the DW list could benefit from it? — Edokter • Talk • 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find 30 different colours, sure (or ten). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Got six sofar... — Edokter • Talk • 22:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Formatting nav box

Do you know how to format a nav box, i.e. the nav box in an article will not be collapsed always, the nav box will be always fully displayed. I am trying to format the Template:Bridges in Slovenia for the article Dragon Bridge, so that the nav box is always displayed fully, not condensed, but the format is not working. This is the general format I know for nav boxes. But this is not working. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to put the state = show parameter in the template itself, not in the article where the template is. But it would make the template expand on all article that use the template. If you want to control the template per article, you have to put the following in the template: | state = {{{state|autocollapse}}}

Then you can use the state parameter in articles as well. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it worked. Thank you very much. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:pp-meta

I've reverted your recent undo to Template:Pp-meta. The template really never should've been using id="administrator" and keeping the template "broken" instead of fixing the JS seems rather silly. I've updated MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.js to detect the "protected-icon" id instead of id="administrator". That should fix the issue. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this change implemented in all protection templates, like pp-template? Otherwise, your fix to the gadget broke more then it fixes. I've added both id's to the js for now. — Edokter • Talk • 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah. Why the hell do we have pp-meta if pp-template doesn't even use it? I thought the whole point of a meta template was to unify everything. Grr... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, pp-template itself seems to be used as a meta template; and {{pp-semi-template}} and {{Pp-semi-usertalk}} don't use pp-meta (or pp-template) either. It's a bit of a mess. — Edokter • Talk • 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on improving pp-meta; in the meantime, I've updated the ids of the other protection templates, though it looks like the fix I originally wanted to the gadget JS has gone through. :) Nihiltres^{t.l} 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll adjust the gadget once more to detect 'protection-icon' only (that should speed it up a bit). — Edokter • Talk • 18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

	The Space-Time Telegraph
	The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter
	Issue 1	March 2008
Project News We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002. One editor has left the project: StuartDD. The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33. Articles of note New featured articles None New featured article candidates Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC) New good articles Dalek (Doctor Who episode) Astrid Peth Delisted articles None Proposals A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here. A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here. A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here. News The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope. The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April. For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

Torchwood article

Protecting it seems a little extreme - there's no real evidence of edit warring. Shouldn't semi-protection be tried first? There's a small corrective edit I've spotted and want to make ("aired" is grammatically wrong in the International Broadcasts section). Stephenb (Talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a small editwar, but I've unprotected it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Stephenb (Talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi, sorry, probably addressing this to the wrong person in the wrong way, but perhaps you can point me in the right direction. On page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Travian (Revenue Links section) you can see a discussion with user Ko2007 where he admits to abusing his editing rights and trying to earn money from posting referral links to the Travian article, despite being asked to stop he openly refuses to stop.

Can you help with this? Or point me in the right direction?

Thanks Jasonfward (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also some additional information on my talk page talk Jasonfward (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a spam warning. If he continues, you can report the editor on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, or give me a yell. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jasonfward (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

BSG titles

Got them from BSG's scheduler while looking up the DW airdates. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Got a link? — Edokter • Talk • 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[1] and every Friday thereafter. "Six of One" is also reffed in the banner. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah OK... Web-editor's error perhaps? Gramatically it doesn't make any sense. Shall we wait until the episode's official page become available? Also, "The Hub" and "Revelations" were sourced (in ref [3]). And where do all these short synopsis descriptions come from? — Edokter • Talk • 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:TardisIndexFile

Please stop edit warring with this template. First, the link is internal as Wikia is a sister site; it is run by the WikeMedia Foundation, so there is no misleading involved. Why would the wikiasite: prefix exsist otherwise. Second, a revert should always be marked as a minor edit; please refrain from acusing my af "abusing" it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Please read our Wikia article. Wikia is not a sister site, nor is it run by the Wikimedia Foundation (a non-profit organization). It's an independent, for-profit venture operated by Wikia, Incorporated (a separate company co-founded by Jimmy Wales).

Like various interwiki links to non-Wikimedia wikis, the "wikiasite" prefix exists in the MediaWiki software (used by many sites with no connection to Wikimedia or Wikia) as a matter of technical convenience, not as a policy-based decision by the Wikimedia Foundation.

2. No, the reversion of an intentional, good-faith edit usually shouldn't be labeled "minor." (I haven't the foggiest idea of what led you to believe that. It certainly wasn't anything on the page to which you linked.) I've already referred you to Help:Minor edit, on which it's explained that "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

No offense, but I'm taken aback by the fact that an administrator could be under the above misconceptions. —David Levy 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edokter is mistaken about the sister site thing, but I must clear up something else for you, David. These templates are all supposed to use the interwiki link format, but were temporarily switched to full links when something had broken on Wikia's servers. We just forgot to change them back. There's no real meaning behind it, nor is there any policy that says you must do one or the other. It's a purely technical thing. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the above, and it has no bearing on my edits. I also removed the "plainlinks" class from some of these templates, as there is no valid reason to exclude the external link icon.

This was discussed somewhere a while back (long before these templates were created). As was noted at the time, the existence of an interwiki prefix (and this applies to the "wikiasite" prefix as well) does not mean that such sites have any special status that sets them apart from other sites; it's merely a means of making it more convenient for people to link to them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia uses external link icons when linking to external sites. That we possess the technical capability to avoid doing this is irrelevant. We can easily do this with any link (via the aforementioned "plainlinks" class), but that doesn't mean that we should.

On the English Wikipedia, it's widely understood that external links (those to non-Wikimedia projects) bear the icon and that those lacking the icon are internal (links to Wikimedia projects). In this case, these templates have been somewhat controversial. This is due to the concern that the linked sites might be mistaken for sister projects, so making the links appear internal is ill-advised. —David Levy 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You want an icon to show that it's an EL, even if it's in the EL section of the page? Fine, but what about just adding the EL icon manually, instead of changing the link? Does anything change if that icon is there or not? No. Do I care if it's there or not? No. The m:interwiki map isn't just there for kicks, and it's actually meant to be used, and for good reason. If it makes you feel better then I'll add the EL icon manually to the templates. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. I don't care about the technical method used to display the links; I merely want to make it as clear as possible that these aren't Wikimedia sites. —David Levy 06:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Shweet. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikia and Wikimedia do have a connection. Adding the icon manually is equally convulted; why not just add the link in the most convenient method available, and not resort to any weird external link construct or extra images? I am trying to keep everyting as simple as possible and the two of you are not helping; roughly half (if not more) wikia linkboxes are broken due to the 'wikia:' links not working anymore. Whenever I come accross any of those, I intend to fix them, and do so in a foolproof way. So no, I'm not happy. That icon suggests it is an external link, while in truth it is a valid wikilink. — Edokter • Talk • 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're complaining about. The above solution breaks nothing and serves an important purpose. I don't know what you mean by "valid wikilink" or what "connection" between Wikimedia and Wikia you believe justifies referring to them as "sister sites." (The fact that Wikia was founded by people affiliated with Wikimedia?)

Again, Wikia is a separate company that is not "run by the Wikimedia Foundation." This should made be clear to readers (who don't care about what type of code is used or how this impacts what they see). Why do you object to that? —David Levy 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It has shown that link without an icon for years, and Wikia is (was) regarded as an informal sister project, as it was founded by Jimbo. That is one of the reason the 'wikia:' interwiki map existed in the first place. However, I'll drop the icon subject. — Edokter • Talk • 16:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad to hear it. Just for the record, I'll direct your attention to the interwiki map. Note that my friend's (non-Wikia) wiki is on that list, and I assure you that he isn't named Jimbo and the wiki isn't regarded as an informal sister project.  :-)

On an unrelated note, what is the status of the "minor edit" issue? —David Levy 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, not worth bickering about. Reading WP:MINOR again, I may have erred on the revert/dispute part, but it's just a little "m" I myself usually ignore. Calling it prone to abuse is overrating it's purpose. — Edokter • Talk • 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just a little "m." When a user hides minor edits (via the "Hide minor edits" link) on his/her watchlist or the recent changes list, edits labeled "minor" are omitted.

In other words, while this presumably wasn't your intention, you were partially hiding your reversions from review. That's why "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." —David Levy 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. — Edokter • Talk • 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —David Levy 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of Time (Torchwood)

So elucidating an actual point of continuity in a section titled "Continuity" is speculation, whereas some meaningless jabber about them getting the day of the week wrong isn't? -Seriously hacked off (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfc

Has the dispute that led to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua been resolved? I am thinking of archiving this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it's stale. But you can go ahead and archive it. — Edokter • Talk • 14:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop the edit war right now

We don't need to edit war at Smith and Jones (Doctor Who). Discuss it on the talk page. If we can not reach amicable agreement there, THEN the right course of action might be taking it to Wikipedia:Fair use review. But, let's TALK first rather than simply revert. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Line-height.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Line-height.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —PNG crusade bot ^(feedback) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(replying to User talk:Remember the dot#Image:Line-height.gif) - It sets a good example when we consistently use the PNG format over the GIF format for still images. This translates into users using the appropriate format when uploading less trivial images. Why do you feel so strongly about using the GIF instead of the PNG? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not particularly opposed to PNG, but crusading against GIF images is not productive either. I am just more accustommed to GIF for simple images, for which it is quite adequate. GIF should not be treated as a pariah. In this partucular case, I had enough stress to endure (see the history of the original image). If editors don't want their uploads converted, that should be respected. — Edokter • Talk • 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Talkback

Template:Talkback has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wizardman 03:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

hi this is whomania why did you change my edits on Journeys End? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whomania (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the added information was totally unencyclopedic and unsouced. Wikipedia can only contain information that can be verified using [[WP:RS|reliable sources] (such as the BBC). — Edokter • Talk • 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television

Hi, I noticed the television infobox looks different. My opinion is that it would look better if the infobox was a bit bigger to make it easier to read, because it is much smaller now than what it was, and most people are used to the big-style writing of the infobox. Thereforem my opinion is that the infobox should be changed back to the old-style. Cheers, --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I did some extensive testing. The box you see now, is, and has always been, the intended font size; Internet Eplorer however, rendered it in a slightly larger font-size. The change was done to make IE behave like ohter browser, like Firefox. If you would like to propose a larger font, feel free to bring it up on the talk page of the template. — Edokter • Talk • 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Planet of the Ood

Just a heads up: I'll be mostly inactive for the next few hours while I catch up on Galactica and get information from Confidential and the podcast. Hopefully I should have the article done up for Turn Left midnight and put on DYK. And yeah, I am trying to get a Doctor Who (series 4) featured topic ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for warning; I'll have to catch up on those as well as soon as I get home. Re. the link in the infobox, Should we link to the Series page then instead of the serials list? Or both? — Edokter • Talk • 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Rosetyler2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosetyler2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Please do not remove tags such as you did to Image:Rosetyler2.jpg unless you have resolved the underlying problems. In this case, you must provide a source and a detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See your talk. — Edokter • Talk • 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 15 minutes to give you a chance to read WP:IUP and because you have continued to remove the tag noting that the image has no source, without providing the source. --Yamla (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to unblock you. I think that was uncalled for. However, you must provide a source before removing the no-source tag. --Yamla (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock me

{{unblock|Where HELL does Yamla get off blocking me while trying to repair image vandalism and replacing the images to their proper pages?}}
You are already unblocked, as noted above. Please refrain from removing the no-source tag from the image until you provide the source. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am too steamed right now... you are advised to stay away from that image at this point. — Edokter • Talk • 22:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I will stay away. I have, however, brought this matter (your continued removal of the no-source tag without providing the mandatory source) on WP:ANI. --Yamla (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have removed your autoblock. As Yamla said, your main block has already been removed. You should be good to go. Please take a deep breath and count to 10. --B (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice that you are an admin - just saw the request in CAT:RFU. You were actually good to go without me doing anything. ;) --B (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway... I know it is not done unblocking yourself, hence the unblock template. — Edokter • Talk • 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Travian

Hi Edokter, can you take a look at this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stargate001 he's already been warned once for link spamming the Travian article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travian and has done it again today. Thanks Jason

Congratulations!

		The Original Barnstar
		Since you've already been given the Doctor Who WikiProject Award, I hereby grant you the Original Barnstar in recognition of your work bringing Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) up to Featured Article standard. Well done! — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. But thruth be told... I hardly worked on that article; all the credits should got to Will. — Edokter • Talk • 10:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Edit warring

Your warning is incorrect. This is not edit warring, this is me protecting consensus! In my first edit summary I asked User:WebHamster to join the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Television#Flag_usage. He ignored me! Thats his problem, NOT mine. Thank you TheProf - T / C 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have warned WebHamster as well. The consensus you refer to, namely the template's talk page, has no bearing on articles where the template is being used; it does not even fall within the scope of that template. WT:FLAG would be a more proper venue. — Edokter • Talk • 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Then i suggest you go to Template_talk:Infobox_Television#Flag_usage and tell them that! Have a nice day :-) TheProf - T / C 14:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop by and say that you seem a little "trigger happy" with using "full protection" for changes to certain articles... I know it's a judgement call, but the "war" appeared to have been taken to discussion before the point of protection, and a real edit war between users did not appear to be taking place. So, by enforcing no edits to an article that you often edit yourself, you perhaps ought to be careful WP:OWN. Stephenb (Talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Planet of the Ood screenshot

Just as a friendly request... can you elaborate on the fair use rationale a bit? Like, say how it's important to the episode as a whole and its theme of slavery (you can see the cage's bar in the screenshot). Less chance of the cry of "decorative!" Sceptre ^(talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try... — Edokter • Talk • 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood

It's always been my opinion that we talk about British programmes in "series", whereas the Amerikins use "season". Any ideas? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well. Why'd you ask? Never mind, I see. — Edokter • Talk • 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I missed something? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a few... — Edokter • Talk • 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as we're consistent thoughout. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Incident

You may want to see the topic relating to the incident that caused those templates to be protected. But if you have seen it already, ah well, I'm sure many are watchlisting those templates now.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I already watched all of them... but it happend in the middle of night for me. I just don't think protecting all the templates 'just to be safe' isn't the way to go; it just screams WP:BEANS. — Edokter • Talk • 08:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)