Talk:Telekinesis/Archive 9

Talk Page Archive

Archive 8 has been created with a link at right. Archive 9, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 9" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. There are also Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on my User page for the beginner. (Please retain this notice, as it is mentioned in the Wiki talk page how-to article.) 5Q5 (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Garret Moddel's evidence

There is an item in the May 2009 print issue of Wired magazine that says University of Colorado at Boulder professor Garret Moddel found evidence of telekinesis (the magazine's description) in lab experiments involving altering the amount of reflected light. Here is the online version of the article, which is the same as the print: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-05/st_madscientists. If anyone can find a scientific journal article on it we should consider adding this claimed breakthrough to the article. If anyone's got the time, feel free to research this more fully and put some links here for review or post a sourced mention in the article. I don't think Wired magazine is a sufficient source. It happened in 2006 and 2007. How come no one's heard of it? 5Q5 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Umbrulla term section - Clean up coming

The Umbrulla term section is being filled with comic book/computer game specialty powers. This is a section I originated and I am seeing my references being altered now to support terms that do not appear in the book (Mind Over Matter) cited. It was discussed on previous talk pages that the article should maintain a real-world scientific research context and not combine it with purely fictional elements. However, I argued that researchers, such as sci-fi writers, might come here looking for information on all references to PK and their needs should also be met. This is a fair warning notice that I intend to clean up the Umbrulla term section and repair the mis-referencing. What I will also do is create a second list under the more scientifically accepted terms and move the fictional terms there. This may take several days to sort out. 5Q5 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I didn't notice it had changed this much. "Latin root + Kinesis" does not a noteworthy list entry make. -Verdatum (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be reverting the main list back to what it was on April 22, 2009 and then moving the more fictional terms to a second list. 5Q5 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, finished cleaning up the section. Tweak/flag as needed. Not saying it's perfect. Had to go back further into the history log to Oct 10 2007 to find my original ref that includes the quote that supports aerokinesis. Because the cited book is used multiple times in the article, the quote doesn't appear in the ref list. The book is nonfiction, but the author likely picked up the term elsewhere. 5Q5 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Telek" discussion - Popular culture

In spite of the warning, I added a brief reference to the science-fiction novella Telek by Jack Vance, which predates all of the other cited examples by almost 25 years. If this makes the list too long, I'd recommend deleting one of the other examples, but please leave Telek! LyleHoward (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a comment. Personally, I have no problem with mentioning this work. I think describing the earliest major usage of TK/PK in fiction would add to the article. So, if an older work can be found, it could replace this (unless there is some other argument as to the work's significance, in which case, the Telek article should be expanded), but until then, this is fine. Ideally, we should be using reliable secondary sources that discuss the role of PK in pop culture to write this section. Those are just unfortunately difficult to find. -Verdatum (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I like this literary example so much I awarded you a Special Barnstar on your talk page. If an earlier example can be found, we'll revisit the issue then. 5Q5 (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Telek" as basis for "Plato's Stepchildren" claim - quality ref needed

I tagged with "citation required" the second half of the line: "An early example is the 1952 novella Telek by Jack Vance, which was the basis for the 1968 Star Trek episode Plato's Stepchildren." because it needs a high quality reference to support a significant claim like that; otherwise it is injurious to the TV episode scriptwriter's reputation. The reference given on the Plato's Stepchildren Wiki article goes to The Encyclopedia of Speculative Fiction article on the episode, which, like Wikipedia, anyone can edit. I cannot find any reliable source in a Google search. It all appears to be opinion. If it is true, great, but let's see a reliable source. Thanks.5Q5 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessarily injurious: Authors are occasionally known to rework (or licence) their books for a television program episode. But, agree. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious tag added. An editor making what I assume to be a good faith edit has added the reference: The Ultimate Unauthorized Star Trek Quiz Book to support the claim that Plato's Stepchildren was based on Telek. For the sake of protecting the writer of the Star Trek episode, I must challenge this reference as lacking sufficient quality to prove a literary "based on" claim. The cited book carries the disclaimer: "This book was not prepared, approved, licensed or endorsed by an entity involved in creating or producing the Star Trek television series and films" as found here. I would like to see a reference that involves someone directly involved with the episode or series: an interview with an insider or an officially autorized book, not a third-party author who may have picked up erroneous information somewhere. Is there a reference in this unauthorized Quiz book to indicate his source? 5Q5 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, oops, I see the disclaimer link I gave above (good faith!) goes to the next unauthorized Star Trek book by the same author: Why You Should Never Beam Down in a Red Shirt and 749 More Answers to Questions About Star Trek. It's the same publisher, too, HarperCollins, so likely the same disclaimer appears in the Quiz book. The bottom line is that the credits for Plato's Stepchildren only mention Meyer Dolinsky, a prolific television writer who died in 1984. To state in the article that Dolinksy based his material on another writer's work requires significant sourcing; otherwise, it could be viewed as negative biographical material against Dolinsky. If the "based on" claim was true, it must be noted that Jack Vance, who is still alive, never sued for credit. I ask for consensus to remove the line making the claim and wait until a proper source can be found and let us preview it here on the Talk page. What say you. 5Q5 (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lacking comments, I brought this matter to the Wiki Star Trek Project Talk page where removal of the "based on" claim was supported by project editors until a more authoratative source is found. 5Q5 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

eSkeptics newsletter call to edit Wikipedia

Michael Shermer's The Skeptics Society issued a call to skeptics yesterday to actively "fix" paranormal topics on Wikipedia. See: eSkeptic, July 22, 2009 article: "Fix Wikipedia." Sample of the advice given: ". . . just go to the Wikipedia article for your favorite paranormal topic and see what needs fixing!" I mention this here in case there is a sudden surge of edit wars, as I note the article had the pseudoscience category added at the bottom today. I am not adverse to skeptical input, as I was a long-time member of a skeptics organization myself and have added much of it to the article. I just want to make sure there is balance in the article. We long time editors have had many discussions about this. I don't want to have to restart those if possible. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It probably goes without saying, but, anyone who takes the time to review the talkpage archives is welcome to raise any valid arguments that haven't yet been fully explored. 5Q5, if it hasn't been done already, you may want to mention this issue on the talkpages of the paranormal and skeptics wikiprojects, so that a heads-up doesn't need to be posted on every article's talkpage. -Verdatum (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. 5Q5 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus requested on removing or keeping two items

I removed the following two items and another editor quickly restored them. I'd like to hear what other editors think. Remove or keep? 5Q5 (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Under "Umbrella terms":

"Anti-Gravity, the ability to create a place or move an object free from the force of gravity."

• Under "Popular Culture" (which clearly has a warning notice in the source code, as there are over a hundred examples of films and TV shows we could list besides this 1988 movie, which only made $19 million at the box office [1]. We already have Carrie listed, another horror film.):

"also that year, Lar Park Lincoln played a telekinetic in Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood."

<!-- PLEASE TRY NOT TO ADD ANY FURTHER EXAMPLES TO THIS BRIEF SECTION - UNLESS A NEW MEDIUM. --> <!-- ♦ Additions can be submitted to the former Wikipedia POPULAR CULTURE LIST which can be found via the External Links section at the bottom of the article. What you want to add here may already be listed there.--> <!-- ANY ADDITIONS HERE ARE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL BY ANY EDITOR!! THANK YOU.-->

I can't see a justification for including anti-gravity, unless there is some reliable source describing it as a kind of psychokinesis (which seems unlikely). The notability of the film doesn't justify its inclusion in this article, since as 5Q5 says, if we listed every film where a character displays PK, the article would be enormous (and still no more informative about PK). Remove both. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Martin. Verbal chat 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the removals because the editors reasons were flawed. If you wanna have a concensus and remove them against wikipedia policy, go nuts, but Anti-Gravity IS NOT the same as picking things up and moving them, and one difference between Carrie and the little girl in Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (both Horror Films, except hard to be further apart in the one genre) is that the roles are villain and hero. Also, even though I have never watched the film, I find the editors argument that it is "not notable" to be offensive and specious. That is 5Q5's opinion, and the fact that it has a wikipedia page implies it IS notable. Feel free to go delete the page and see how that goes down. In summary, do whatever you want. WookMuff (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be removing both items after this post. Regarding Anti-Gravity as a, I suppose, comic-book mental superpower, what would happen if an object lost gravity? If on Earth, wouldn't it go flying in one direction while the Earth continued to spin? What would cause it to keep it's position relative to the ground? Added TK perhaps? I suspect "Anti-Gravity" is a gimmick superpower that a comic writer invented and wasn't very well thought out. Can a reference be found to explain how it makes sense as a psychic power? As for the movie, respectfully, as the in-code notice says, we have to keep this section brief. Wikipedia frowns on Pop Cultural sections to begin with, and at one time the entire section was deleted for that reason and we had to shorten it to get it back. In early November, The Men Who Stare at Goats (film) will be released which has a major cast and if that has PK in it (in the book, they stare at goats to stop their hearts), I think we should bump Push off and list that instead. Note that I have restrained myself from listing Dan Brown's current mega-besteller The Lost Symbol, which has a female micro-PK scientist in it. In the book she claimed to have altered the growth of ice crystals using her mind. 5Q5 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Request to delete following line

"There are many areas of accepted science, however, such as in astronomy, geology, and meteorology, that do not rely on replicable results in a laboratory and instead depend on spontaneous cases in nature to provide evidence for study and the formation of theories" Can someone please delete this, due to POV. This is very misleading and implies that scientific idea can be based on unobservable or even antidoctal evidence without theories to support them. There are no scientific theories that support Psychokinetics nor is there any observed effects by scientists. This line exists to mislead people into thinking that mainstream science could possibly accept this perspective lacking theories or observed evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.112.92 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is neither POV or misleading and is properly sourced (my ref). The line states a fact. You can't expect a meteor to fall to Earth on command or a tornado to develop or a fossil to form overnight. Such things in nature happen spontaneously. If a respected astronomer says he/she witnessed something phenomenal in his/her telescope, it cannot be duplicated and the report becomes anecdotal. Further, here is a section previosuly in the article on 15 December 2007. 5Q5 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

While the line in question can be argued to be accurate, and i have no doubt it is properly backed by the given source, my concern is the context in which it is used. It's an arguable statement. In context, I presume is used as a rebuttal to criticism of scientific study/evidence of psychokinesis. But here, instead of being used as a description of a party's particular position, it is used as a stated fact. I think the line should be softened to say something like, "Schoch and Yonavjak, respond to this by arguing that..." Again, it's an extremely arguable phrase, (I've had to stop myself 3 times now from discussing the problems I see with the argument). -Verdatum (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Verdatum. As it stands now, the statement gives the appearance of saying much more than it is probably saying. It seems to say that, although there is no good evidence in support of psychokinesis, that's okay because many respected fields of science also have established theories that similarly lack good evidence. That's dubious at best, and outright misleading at worst. If an astronomer sees something phenomenal in his/her telescope, and no one else can confirm it through independent observation, then it is not simply accepted as fact, no matter how respected the astronomer might be. Further, claims of psychokinesis can and have been tested in controlled studies, and none of those tests have generated enough actual evidence to move it into the realm of accepted science. So I say the statement either needs to be rewritten in the proper context (the views of the authors of the reference in response to specific criticism), or removed entirely. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above criticisms. We should not be giving the impression that astronomy, geology, and meteorology work on anecdotal rather than replicable evidence. They might not have replicable results in a laboratory, but in this case "in a laboratory" is doing most of the work. The paragraph quoted by 5Q5 is so logically confused that there's a good reason for it not now to be in the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the line to better reflect the source from which it is referenced: "In his 2008 book The Parapsychology Revolution, Robert M. Schoch, a Ph.D geophysicist at Yale University argues however that there are many areas of accepted science, such as in astronomy, geology, and meteorology, that do not rely entirely on replicable results in a laboratory and instead depend on spontaneous cases in nature to provide evidence for study and the formation of theories and that reports of spontaneous cases of psychokinesis might also fall into this category of research. 5Q5 (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Better, but still misleading. Clearly, all fields of science "depend on spontaneous cases in nature to provide evidence for study and the formation of theories." That isn't in question here. The difference between accepted science and psuedoscience is that, once accepted science has a theory based on observation, it goes on to test that theory, and it discards it if the tests are negative. Psychokinesis hasn't done that, which is why it is pseudoscience and not accepted science. The wording still seems to dance around that point by trying to paint the lack of solid evidence as perfectly okay, and by pretending that creating theories by way of observation in somehow equal to and on par with testing those theories to determine if they are valid. In my view, the text either needs to be removed, or corrected as a mistaken argument.

Does anyone have access to the source material? A direct quote provided here on the talk page might make revisions easier. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When I placed the line in the article on Dec 30, 2008 I provided the supporting quote from the book on the talk page. See Archive 8 section "Laboratory experiments versus field research." 5Q5 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on my read of the original quote, it is the quote itself, in context in its source, which is misleading. It does in the source exactly what I said it seems to do in the article. So, in my opinion, it needs to be removed, or corrected as a mistaken argument. Frankly, even correcting it as mistaken seems to me to give undue weight to this argument, so I favor removing it. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the book quote from Yale University professor Schoch. My comments follow.

"Laboratory replicability with 75 to 100% consistent results, however, is not the only criterion by which to judge if something is real, natural, and should be included within the context of modern science. If such were the case then much of astronomy, geology, and meteorology would at best be relegated to the realm of para-science. Indeed, in these three fields many of the most critical observations and data cannot be found or replicated in a laboratory. Rather, they must be observed from spontaneous cases in nature, just as with the study of telepathy and various other psi phenomena more generally. Furthermore, all of these fields have struggled long and hard, and continue to struggle, to formulate and revise cogent explanatory theories for the phenomena they study. It is exactly the same case in parapsychology and the study of psi phenomena."

— The Parapsychology Revolution, Robert M. Schoch and Logan Yonavjak. Penguin Group, New York, 2008, pp. 342-343. ISBN: 978-1-58542-616-4.

The PK article as a whole has plenty of anti-PK material to balance out pro-PK material. I myself have put in both sides' views on the topic. The line in the article in question is used in a distinct section titled, and specifically intended to discuss, "Laboratory experiments versus field research." In that section there are three sentences. Two could be considered anti-PK and one, Schoch's, pro-PK. I am the editor who put in all three and their references. According to WP:NPOV:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. . . . Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides.

In the context of the sub-discussion of lab evidence versus field research, Schoch's comment represents the required significant opposing view since he is a professor at Yale University and not an amateur rock hound. Perhaps the opening line in the section below should be changed to "Most scientists" instead of the current "Many": Many scientists have concluded that psychokinesis, especially the visible movement of objects, does not exist because it cannot be replicated in a controlled laboratory setting to match anecdotal reports.[84] You will have to delete the other two sentences I sourced if you delete Schoch's because neutrality will be lost. 5Q5 (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make this clear, but your arguments above showcase why I believe that the entire section should be deleted. So I agree with your last sentence above. The section sets up a false premise, then proceeds to shoot it down. As a whole, the section is misleading and it places undue weight on a fringe view. Part of the problem is that the supposed "anti-PK" statement that starts the paragraph is, in fact, a quote from the Holographic Universe, a book that promotes pseudoscience. So Talbot's statements about why scientists do not accept PK are suspect from the beginning (and, in fact, wrong). The fact that someone else then shoots down that flawed premise is meaningless. So, to reiterate, the entire section should be deleted as misleading.

There is no controversy about whether lab experiments are the only way to achieve solid scientific evidence. The scientific method is used. If that entails lab testing, great. If, due to the nature of what is being tested, lab testing isn't feasible (and I don't agree that this is the case with PK, but that's a different discussion), then the scientific method is still followed, just outside the lab. PK theories have fallen off the scientific train because they fall apart when the scientific method is applied, both inside and outside of the lab. And the reason why scientists don't accept PK as actual science is stated in the intro: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that psychokinesis exists."

This is a manufactured controversy (not by you, mind you), and it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. NPOV doesn't mean that misleading and false statements should be given equal weight, and that's what I see here. So let's delete the entire "Laboratory experiments versus field research" section. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

One other note. The last sentence of the existing section should probably be kept, slightly modified, and moved to the end of the section on "Notable witnesses to PK events," as it fits there fairly well. That sentence (sources removed for ease of copying) reads:

On the problem of eyewitness testimony of alleged spontaneous psychokinetic events, aAnecdotes such as these - ; that is, stories by eyewitnesses outside of controlled laboratory conditions, - are considered insufficient evidence by the majority of scientists to establish the scientific validity of psychokinesis.

In my view, it's a good use of this existing statement, and it is needed to balance out the section on eyewitness accounts in order to explain that such accounts do not constitute valid evidence. Thoughts on the deletion of the section and the alternate use of this sentence elsewhere in the article? -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The anecdotal evidence line previously was the last line of the "Explanations in terms of bias" section and prior to that it was under its own subsection heading. These are viewable in the history log. My "lab versus field" subsection has been in the article for 10 months without a problem. You will have to delete it, not me. 5Q5 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I get that it's been there for a while. I, for one, never read it before the issue was raised a few days ago (just above). But when I did read it, I saw problems that I feel we need to address (per my comments here). To be clear, I don't expect you to delete what you wrote. I'm just discussing the issue, stating my views, and asking others to do the same. I have no problem being the one to delete the text, but I want to make sure that the issue is properly discussed before I do so.

Frankly, this discussion has changed my view of what should happen (originally I thought just a portion of the section needed to be rewritten, but through discussion I now believe that most needs to be removed and one piece needs to be moved), so if I had started with an edit instead of a discussion, we would have ended up in a less ideal place than I think we will end up as a result of this discussion. At the end of the day, we're all trying to improve the article. I certainly don't think you did anything wrong by adding this section, and I hope you don't think I implied that. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There may exist conditions in the field, such as a person's calm or angry emotional state associated with past events in their home, that are a factor in producing spontaneous PK events and that could never be duplicated in a different place such as a laboratory. An analogy is a person who can sing beautifully at home but freezes onstage in front of an audience. In the history of PK research, most of the case reports involving macro-PK are field reports. I am preserving the deleted section below. To anyone interested in the references, see the history log and archived page for this date. No one else is joining this discussion, so delete/move as you wish. I am moving on. Thanks.5Q5 (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but my position remains. This is a misleading and incorrect straw man setup by a proponent of the supernatural (Talbot), then knocked down in order to appear to equate the scientific validity of PK with the scientific validity of astronomy and geology. Move and delete are now done, as described above. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Transity for pursuing this right decision, and thank you both for a high standard of discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Electronic Voice Phenomena

I found a quote that seems to support a new specialty ability and I want to store it here in case it's needed in the future. Using PK to create sounds on recorded media.

Some investigators believe the "voices" on the tapes are the product of experimenters who inadvertently imprint the tapes by psychokinesis in their zealousness to capture spirit voices.

— Peter H. Aykroyd, A History of Ghosts: The True Story of Seances, Mediums, Ghostsm and Ghostbusters, by Peter H. Aykroyd with Angela Narth, page 117, 2009, Rodale, Inc., 978-1-60529-875-7

Dan Aykroyd's brother writing on, among other topics, ghostbusters? It's a pretty soft claim, so I have no real problem with it. But is this a Reliable Source, and not just a Conflict of Interest (Trying to cash in)? The article on Peter Aykroyd lists him as an actor, is he credible as a paranormal researcher? -Verdatum (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is written by the father and his photo is on the inside back flap. I see in Dan Aykroyd's article his father's name is given as "Samuel Cuthbert Peter Hugh Aykroyd." Why he's going by the name Peter H. Aykroyd as an author I have no idea. Maybe you can update Dan Aykroyd's article to state his father's name, and that the father is using his son's name? Dan Aykroyd and his father have been doing a press tour for the book since Dan does the book's Forward and is interviewed in the book. Other son Peter is also interviewed in the book. My problem with the book and its claim of telling the "true story" is that it describes the history of the "Office of Scientific Investigation and Research (O.S.I.R.)" from the TV show Psi Factor (an Aykoyd series) as a real organization began in the 1940s and now mysteriously has been dissolved. Sure... That casts doubt on everything else in the book unfortunately. 5Q5 (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Some investigators"? Looks like those are the people we should be citing. Does the Aykroyd book give references? MartinPoulter (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did say "seems to support." I agree this particular quote is insufficient to add anything to the article (or I would have). I just wanted to stick it here for research in case anybody locates a higher quality source, and as you rightly note, names names. 5Q5 (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus requested on adding "Goats" movie to Pop Culture

Any objection to adding a mention of George Clooney in The Men Who Stare at Goats (film). He is an Oscar-winning actor (for 2005's Syriana) so his take on a PK character in a theatrically released film is noteworthy in my opinion because of its rarity in Hollywood. As a trade-off, I'd like to delete the line Prue Halliwell's main power as a witch was telekinesis in the series Charmed. because we have a more recent television example in the very next line: Also from the TV show Heroes, the serial killer Sylar frequently exhibits telekinetic ability. Doable? 5Q5 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, especially given the connection of the film to real events. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good proposal to me. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tweak if desired. 5Q5 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)