User talk:ජපස

Barnstar for continued diligence

		The Original Barnstar
		I think you deserve another barnstar for your continued diligence. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Encouragement

alt text

I have noticed that some people have been rude to you recently, and I'm sorry to see that. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. Keep your chin up! Sarah crane 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions regarding space/time in such detail. Tom Cod 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your cite position

If you have the reference at your side, what's the big deal about typing in the book and the page number?

If you're Stephen Hawking, and you're having trouble typing because of your disability, I'd fight for the policy to be changed, allowing you to have software that automatically inserts <ref>Because I say so. Stephen Hawking</ref> after every period that's followed by a space.

But "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" doesn't appear to list "ScienceApologist". Guess I'm not alone in thinking you're a mere mortal, like the rest of us. Boy, that must really be a bummer for you to be treated that way. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. If you do make personal attacks, please make sure to cite reliable sources. For example, it was decided some time ago after discussion on the subject that Who's Who is not, in general, a reliable source of information on the notability of a scientist (from the BDORT conflicts, I believe). Furthermore, I cannot find any source for the idea that ScienceApologist is ScienceApologist's actual name, or that people consider him to be anything other than mortal. --Philosophus ^T 09:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I don't get it. Why should you be exempt from following Wikipedia policies?

"What's the big deal about inline-citing 100 references?" That's my point. You spend minutes finding a source and writing a sentence. Spending another 10 seconds to type in the book and page number is not a big deal.

"Why don't you try it sometime." I do it all the time. Earlier this month, I did 52 citations for the Johnny Appleseed article. Took me a couple of hours, on a couple of days, because I had to find the sources. When I write new articles, though, I add citations as I write. which means that it's no big deal. The Lancaster County, Pennsylvania article has 142 citations, most of which I added, but it was no big deal, because I added the cites as the content was being added.

Most people who object to citing sources don't have any sources. That's acceptable at GeoCities, but not at Wikipedia. Zero content is preferable to questionable content. That's why the official policy is that any editor can delete unsourced material with no other explanation necessary. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world

Precicley the opposite here. We are object to citing sources because we have hundreds of sources. --Salix alba (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to provide hundreds of sources for each fact. One reliable source per fact is sufficient to meet the verifiability policy. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Which I think leads us to Walkerma's chemical solution. We can find one text book which will backup 90% the of the references. So, does it help to fill the article with a lot of repeated references to the same work? The second question is then which of the 100 textbooks do we choose? --Salix alba (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it help the user if he knows where the information come from? In the opinion of WP:V, yes. In some cases, the citation will be to the same page, and thus the same reference can be used. That's why the software allowed you to use the name attribute for the ref tag; if you use it a second time, you simply specify <ref name=whatever /> instead of providing full details each time. But in most cases, different pages will come into play, so you won't have that many repeated references. As to which book to cite, wouldn't it make sense to use the book you used as a source in writing the article? If you have trouble picking out one to use as a source in writing the article, I suggest you consult a Magic 8-ball. Or see Buridan. He has a beast of burden that may be willing to help you make a decision. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 01:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Information doesn't "come" from this single textbook. It is general knowledge and is verifiable by many textbooks. It's this kind of amateurish research program that has led to the idiocy of over-referenced articles in the first place. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We can find one text book which will backup 90% the of the references. Splendid. So, does it help to fill the article with a lot of repeated references to the same work? No. Instead, you do either or conceivably both of two things: (i) have a single discursive note near the top of the article (perhaps at the end of the first paragraph) saying that the ideas summarized in the article are argued for in one, two or three books; (ii) list these two or three books in "References" together with brief descriptions of their relationships to the article. The second question is then which of the 100 textbooks do we choose? Gee, I don't know. You're the physicists; I'm not. But allow me to bring in a partial analogy from natural-language syntax, something I do happen to know a bit about. Suppose I set out to write an article on what's called "Minimalism" (in syntax, more than a mere marketing slogan). The fundamental idea goes back to Chomsky; I dutifully cite the relevant works. But these are impossibly difficult for anyone bothering to look this matter up at WP, so I add a note saying that much or all of this can be read up in much more accessible form within Radford's English Syntax. If someone challenges this, saying that such-and-such has no backing within that book, I reach for Radford's Minimalist Syntax (actually an augmented edition of English Syntax) and cite that. If another editor or reader then thinks I'm showing favoritism or whatever, he or she is free to add to my first note a recommendation of Haegeman and Guéron's English Grammar. Or if somebody objects to the anglophonocentricity (?!) of these, he or she is free to recommend the second half (not the first!) of Carnie's Syntax. There's no obvious reason not to have half a dozen book recommendations, if people care to add them in a scrupulous and informative way: the full set will take little space and of course fewer bytes than any corporate logo, popstar photo, etc etc. And of course if somebody objects that all these books are too difficult, then I or someone will have to point out that this is normally postgraduate material: minimalism isn't post-Newtonian cosmology (or "rocket science") but it's not that easy, either. No, I don't claim that linguistics has the status of a natural science (or that minimalism is as widely accepted within it as some concepts that have articles here are accepted within [non-nutball] physics) -- but is this either so very different from the predicament of physics writers or so difficult to implement? -- Hoary 11:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have started another poll at the WP:CITE talk page. You have been active there recently, so I encourage you to vote. CMummert 23:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thought

The recent controversy that we have been engaged in over inline citations has exposed, I think, a serious flaw in the way in which Good Article status is conferred. The possibility has been floated of forking distinct areas into a separate wiki in order to circumvent the naïve dilettantism that seems currently to pervade the GA process. I wonder, however, if much the same can be achieved through a rethinking of the good article process itself. There are many areas – physics, math, music, literature, pokemon, history, etc… - that have portals and named participants. Instead of having a group of 20 or so uninformed generalists undertaking the daunting task of rating articles as good or not, it would be preferable to divert the review process through editors involved in those distinct portals, a sort of fusing good article status with peer review. As a result of this debate, I have looked at a number of good article reviews and I find that the mostly the suggestions are of a “please cite your sources nature” rather than a committed engagement with the material. In effect, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to investigate the possibility of having the concept of Good Articles divided up by category with respect to review for inclusion or not: thus Good Articles in Physics, Good Articles in Music, Good Articles in Pokemon (shudder) etc…. While this debate has centred around scientific articles (not my area of expertise) I can easily see much the same being applied to music, literature, etc… where citations are being demanded for basic facts that nonetheless may be unknown to an uninformed reader. A proposal could be floated and the various portal pages invited to intervene with commentary and ideas. Eusebeus 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. 75.35.76.29 07:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusion bad; boilerplate good

Gee, now I wish I hadn't asked a followup question. Are you saying that Om*****on, T*o L**s, and I are in a Whole Lotta Trouble simply for seeking clarification from B**d P*****k?

You have my permission to just remove my comments from Talk:Water fuel cell if you think I inadvertently made things worse, although I have to say it seems rather strange to me that clarifying something would be bad.---CH 09:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Posting to Brad's account was more than reasonable action considering your confusion, and you don't need to feel the need to censor yourself if you are confused. I just think it's best for all involved to let the matter drop and so as to not to continue to aggravate the user in question, it's best we don't overly pepper Wikipedia with references to this issue so that we don't get dragged into a legal case unwittingly. Your suggestion for a boilerplate is probably excellent, and hopefully Brad will take this up for future issues. WP:OFFICE is still relatively a new feature, so we're still working out as a community the communication-related kinks. Brad's not a WikiGod, he's just a Wikipedian like you or me who has the additional role of looking out for the interests of Wikipedians and the Wikimedia Foundation when it comes to direct legal issues (like actual legal threats accompanied by formal documentation as opposed to the empty ones that we encounter from time-to-time). You don't need to worry. Take a deep breath, continue editting Water fuel cell as you normally would, and don't worry about the legal issues associated with the article. --ScienceApologist 09:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, got it. I actually don't edit that article much, although I hope to use it as an example illustrating the possibility for manipulation of information in the Wikipedia by startup companies, particularly ones out the Save the World, a goal which some who own it feel can be used to justify all kinds of nefarious means (I don't agree with them). I was more concerned with the general issues, which you have cleared up to my satisfication. I hope BP does indeed employ boilerplate henceforth. Erm.. by the way, do you happen to have any idea how many articles in WP are currently involved with this kind of legal wrangling? ---CH 09:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

...I haven't the foggiest. You might try looking through BP's contributions. --ScienceApologist 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Er... I'm not that interested. By reply you can (should?) just delete this whole section from your user talk page.---CH 09:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No categorical imperative exists for deletion. Ours is a perfectly reasonable and interesting discussion and I like to keep a record of all that happens. --ScienceApologist 09:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk

Sorry for not answering your question over there on the Intelligent Design Talk section but I think it will get too long and confusing if we go back over already covered ground concerning leading proponents of Intelligent Design. But I still can't help but wonder what you think of The Legal Times.com writing, "As an aside, Umana is also a leading proponent of intelligent design, the belief that evolution involves the direct intervention of a supernatural being." Through the use of google and putting in the name "John Umana" +Discovery Institute i'm unable to come up with any connection between Umana and the Discovery Institute. What do you think? Bagginator 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration involvement

Please note that I have started a Request for Arbitration: Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism in which I have included you as an "Involved party", and may wish to comment. --Iantresman 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Redshift Review

SA, I agreed to help review the Redshift article as a collaborator with the SPR:Redshift but I will be away from Wiki for a while due to illness. I will help review Redshift when I return. Cheers, Astrobayes 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology

I've noted your work on this article in the past, and was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the recent changes. It seems like one editor is trying to change the whole purpose of the article, to focus less on the bible's take on astronomy, and more on something called "spiritual cosmology", a term that only gets ~600 google hits. I personally feel this content needs to be in another article, and previous content restored, however I am new to this article so I am seeking the opinions of previous contributors. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 14:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoskeptic opinion wanted at AfD

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum evolution (alternative) ? It seems like complete bollocks to me, but I'd like an expert opinion. Thanks in advance ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

1956 Hungarian Revolution

Hi SA, I know you can't stand the title, but we've done a lot of work on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, cleaning up POV and references and such. Would you mind taking a look at it again (ignoring the title) and see if maybe it warrants a support vote on FAC? :) Thanks. K. Lastochka 15:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Having problems with a reviewer

I moved this to here, since it's not really appropriate on the FA talk page.

User:Tony1 objected to redshift FAC for reasons that varied from what I considered reasonable and actionable to reasons that I considered ignorant and unsourced. I said as much and he took offense (and also took offense to me "pestering him" on his talkpage). He posted a rather acerbic reply and I tried to mend fences, but he responded very curtly to my response. As such, I'm not sure what to do. Can somebody help me break this person out of their shell or at least read through the exchange to see what can be done? --ScienceApologist 15:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some thoughts, for what they're worth. I've had a glance at the relevant discussions and I suggest you act upon those recommendations by Tony1 with which you agree, and ignore everything else (including the acerbic tone). In the context of this FA candidature you're unlikely to need to work very much with him, so let it all pass. (If there was some prospect of having to collaborate with Tony1 I'd say do what you can to mend broken bridges.) That being said, it's an opportunity to consider avoiding the use of the word "ignorant" in future comments - even when you're using it in its limited sense. The same goes for "editorially unsound". Such terms always come off as value judgements and slurs. Better to simply state your point without piggy-backing commentary... Good luck with the article! Pinkville 15:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD and "conspiracy theories"

Hi, ScienceApologist. You have been mentioned by user:DixiePixie at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical development of physical cosmology in what seems to be an unjustified accusation (that was made toward me too). I am under the impression that user:Arbeiter will soon show up there too, making the same claims. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PS talk page edits

ScienceApologist, did you mean to take these edits out? Or did something happen with an edit conflict? --Dematt 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I accidently cleared a whole page once:) That's how I knew you didn't know you did it;) --Dematt 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Biblical"

Glad to see you there. My biases seem to be similar to yours--a repudiation of pseudoscience, and a willingness to learn about other viewpoints. I am quite bothered by the presentation of sophomoric "arguments" in support of positions I feel strongly about--much more than in things I disagree with. (though I know more biology than I do physics).(Unless I have misunderstood your position).

I would have the strongest possible presentation of creationism at WP, and I would not argue against it by ridicule. That most wikipedians including you and I are irreligious is not a valid argument. Comments invited, here or by email from my page.DGG 03:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Literalism and Cosmology

Hi, you keep changing the intro to Literalism without bringing it to discussion. I seems as if you've got a definition of the phrase that you like to stick to but aren't citing and contradicts what other editors hav allready agreed on. The definition you are using makes eveyone a biblical literalist.. if all they do is take "SOME" parts of the Bible as literal. Everyone does that. There was a place named Jerusalem, who doesn't take that part as literal?

Also, you might enjoy hitting up the Biblical cosmology page. It's pretty POV and could use someone dedicated to scrapping POV from the article. It would also demonstrate your good faith as an editor to remove blatent POV written by someone from your own camp. Peace --Home Computer∴Peace 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Humourous vandalsim

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Biblical literalism. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Home Computer∴Peace 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Hey.. don't do that plz.

MFD

I was going to withdraw the nomination when I saw the amount of "keep" votes received. I try to do the right thing. but I suppose I messed up... -- Selmo ^(talk) 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That helped. -- Selmo ^(talk) 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Tommy, read the redshift article

The redshift article's third paragraph starts by describing Doppler shift. The paragraph ends with "Most famously, the spectral redshifts of distant galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas clouds are observed to increase proportionally with their distance to the observer. This is generally considered to be significant evidence that the universe is expanding, as predicted by the Big Bang model." I couldn't find anyplace in the paragraph where the context changes from Doppler shifts. If "No astronomer believes anymore that the cosmological redshift is due to the Doppler Effect", then should the third paragraph be changed? Art LaPella 19:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please address this question: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop#Science_Apologist. Fred Bauder 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Metric expansion of space I presume. Fred Bauder 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tommysun was complaining that you made the edit without explanation, but now that I understand the point, I see you did made an explanation. It was just that it was not understood. Perhaps part of this dispute is impatience. But then, you did not hire on to teach the other edits physics. Fred Bauder 14:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeasement

Granted that political correctness is built into Wikipedia's open structure, but does this mean I have given Tommy the Sudetenland? Art LaPella 06:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A metaphor that unintentionally links yourself with Spanish Stalinism and supports Fred Bauder. Do you think Tommy was unduly encouraged to go on because I didn't call him enough names? Art LaPella 17:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all three points, but given that Wikipedia justice takes over a year, if you answer my question about Tommy my next question will be if Ian could have been treated the same way. Art LaPella 18:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The powers that be seem to agree, finally. I'll be leaving in 8 minutes, but have I called Tommy enough names? Art LaPella 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I called him Mr. I-Love-To-Tell-A-Story, a euphemism for liar. I can't think of anything else I'd call a name, although I could probably find some. Mostly I said, for instance, that arbitrators should discount his evidence - which got his attention without being something that could have been put more nicely. Art LaPella 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, if my system works fine, I'm not going to tell you to use it on others because I don't really know. Maybe I should have laid into Tommy like you laid into Ian, policy be damned. It's not that I have the answer, I just wanted to make sure you're thinking about it. Oh, another thing I did with Tommy, as currently on his talk page: I said he's a wikieditor because he edits the wiki, while Art C. prefers to debate science. That's partly because I'm not a scientist, but it's also because debating something complicated risks boosting his ego more than it deflates it. Art LaPella 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric. Reason will trump evident POV-pushing in the end, and there is no deadline. Right now, lack of civility on the part of those promoting the scientific mainstream does seem to be impacting on the strength of the case against the POV-pushers. I suggest that you resort to calm reason, and request protection to forestall edit wars. Guy 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation

Just curious about the inclusion of emergy as a subcat - while it is far from "well established" does it really lack critical scientific evaluation? After all, it isn't "ignored or not commented on in peer reviewed scientific journals". (Yeah, I know, I'm biased - in a broad sense I claim some intellectual descent from Odum). Guettarda 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... It's very much a mixed bag. To see Creation science lumped in with Arp's non-cosmological red-shift is somewhat incongruous. I was worried for Heim Theory when I saw you put it in there, but some of the other physics theories there are of some degree of respectability, so I'll let that stand for the nonce. Oh and I despise materialism, being a confirmed dualist in the Cartesian sense. Just reading Chalmer's The Conscious Mind and he makes it wonderfully clear how blind many theorists are to the subjective aspect of consciousness - materialism is not even wrong. --hughey 13:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)--hughey 13:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus equals Christopher Michael Langan?

You recently left a message on my talk page. Here's my response: who cares what you think? Prove your suspicions, or go bug somebody else with them. (Not that it would make any difference if you were to prove them, since bio subjects are permitted to protect their biographies from slurs and counterfactual statements.) Thanks, Asmodeus 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops...I almost forgot. According to Wikipedia policy, you're not even allowed to try to prove such suspicions, since that would be unwarranted divulgence of personal information (sorry if I caused any confusion on your end). Asmodeus 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, now that I think about it, you're not even allowed to voice such suspicions, since by so doing, you're attempting to divulge personal information. (Sorry, but I guess I'm just out of it today.) Asmodeus 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the lady doth protest too much. The contextual evidence is very strong. You live in the same general geographic location as Christopher Michael Langan, you defend him with a personal zeal unlike any I've seen, and you hold his ideas true and dear. When another user made fun of Langan's high IQ you went ballistic. Yep, I think most people can come to their own conclusions. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to query

I have not been made aware of any association of the user and IRL association, publicly or privately, by any means whatsoever, and do not care to speculate, which I feel would be contrary to the spirit of collegiality here, and as pointed out already, very possibly contrary to the spirit of the guidelines. It's just not my place to "go there".

I asked the user in question for some clarification on the classification of the theory based upon what appeared to be a better understanding than mine of the theory in question, and as that user pointed out, Wikipedia isn't the place for content based discussions of that kind of detail. That said, I am quite aware that there are more than a few people with a better understanding of the theory in question than mine who are not the biography subject. My research focus has been almost exclusively in formal examination of adaptive language theory and practice, only very, very rarely touching upon epistemological matters, and then, only with a self-disclaimer that the exposition is an informal treatment. There are others far more qualified than myself to know the depth of it ... but I noted (from having reviewed the PCID paper before publication) that its own self-declaration was not as science proper, but more towards epistemological and ontological leanings. The user in question appeared to me able to offer some insight there, and that was that.

Because I know the subject of that biography, and it may be perceived as a conflict of interest (whether it is or not is not the question at hand), I've backed off from presenting evidence in either direction in the open arb case, although I did leave (and still believe) the evidence that shows I feel you are quite capable of rational discourse and are open to compromise if presented with a convincing case for inclusion of material. I also proposed a possible compromise in the plasma cosmology situation that would also those perceived as pro-plasma to construct what they consider their model article, so they can open just such a discussion with the pro-big-bang side, using their "ideal article" as a model point to start discussions, without main namespace disruption. I felt this may allow them to consider your points in a calm environment, as they attempt to gather their NPOV presentation of the plasma cosmology piece.

That said, and perhaps to give a better sense of my concerns (since they do not relate to any one person's editorial philosophy, but go to a larger phenomena that appears to be taking place, in my perception, anyway) I have noted other things around Wikipedia that have me concerned, such as the biography of a mathematician that originally was, even though only intended as a stub, quite bent towards a particular portrayal of that person, and so did some homework and put up what I felt was a more balanced starting point. This in general, as a concept, unsettles me. I never knew that mathematician ... but knew of his work, and knew that the stub was (probably as a result of the eventualist nature of Wikipedia), just way out of proportion on his outspoken stance against what he called "neo-Darwinism".

That's all not meant to be a distraction from your original query, but an explanation perhaps of some of my own edits. I've backed away from the biography of the person you've asked about, even though I still feel it gives undue weight to something (already mentioned in the arb evidence), and I ask that you respect that backing away from that aspect carries to further discussion of its potential implications here.

Cheers. -- QTJ 19:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)