User talk:Fainites/archive 2

memo to self

WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. Fainites 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy

Attachment therapay receives enormous amounts of govt funding. Probably the only reason it exists. Few would privately pay for this.

This the problem. It is under the radar. There is no way to really publish what types of therapies childrend receive without violated privacy laws. You see interested in bringing the truth out. Establish an email address and I will send you info. I am working under cover right now to gring out this info. (this was accidently left on my user page so I moved it hereFainites 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

I'd be glad to help you in this regard. There is much confusion about what is "AT" and what isn't. As described in the article in Wikipedia, it is a pretty limited rare practice and certainly not one endorsed by mainstream mental health practitioners. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

EMDR

Hi Fainites, I noticed your comments to Dr Chris Lee on his page and the EMDR talk page. I think he meant that his edits to the article were removed (and they were when we had to revert the article because of that anonymous user's edits) - I don't think he meant that his comments from the talk page were removed. Kat, Queen of Typos 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Neuro-linguistic programming

Your recent edit to Neuro-linguistic programming (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was reverting pornographic vandalism which your bot put back! Never mind eh! All sorted now. Fainites 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref 17 on EMDR

No, it's still messed up - here, I took a screenshot: [1] Kat, Queen of Typos 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much better! Kat, Queen of Typos 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

transfer message from user page from Dr Lee

Hi


I made changes to the Devilly sentences as it reflects an outdated review of the follow up data. Two more recent meta-analysis restricted the investigation to traditional exposure therapy and EMDR and found that they led to equivalent outcomes at follow-up (Bradley, Greene, Russ, Dutra, & Westen, 2005; Seidler & Wagner, 2006). In the most recent (Bradley, Greene, Russ, Dutra, & Westen, 2005; Seidler & Wagner, 2006) there is an interesting calculation to perform. If you remove the study with the largest effect size in any one direction (-.93) (devilly's by the way) then the resulting average .27 is significant and favours EMDR. This would be done by some people doing meta-analysis as the -.93 result is an outlier and creates too much heterogeneity. The authors left it in and concluded no difference. Also EMDR has had 18 month follow-up showing treatment effects in place (Edmond & Rubin, 2004). Recent studies suggest that traditional exposure treatments may not be so robust over time without but cognitive therapy is (Tarrier & Sommerfield, 2004).

Bradley, R., Greene, J., Russ, E., Dutra, L., & Westen, D. (2005). A Multidimensional Meta-Analysis of Psychotherapy for PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(2), 214-227. Edmond, T., & Rubin, A. (2004). Assessing the Long-Term Effects of EMDR: Results from an 18-Month Follow-Up Study with Adult Female Survivors of CSA. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13(1), 69-86. Seidler, G. H., & Wagner, F. E. (2006). Comparing the efficacy of EMDR and trauma-focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in the Treatment of PTSD: a meta–analytic study Psychological Medicine 36 1515-1522. Tarrier, N., & Sommerfield, C. (2004). Treatment of Chronic PTSD by Cognitive Therapy and Exposure: 5-Year Follow-Up. Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 231-246.

Fainites 14:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

I support your efforts to clean up the series of LGAT and related articles. I, too, have been trying to get some of the jargon and propaganda removed.

It seems that so many of them are written from an anti-cult perspective. It's slow work. Peace in God. Lsi john 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm no fan of cults but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. It's just annoying when people with a POV push their POV on multiple pages. I don't mind at all NLP being named a LGAT if there are verified and credible sources stating it is a LGAT. Passing references in theses on other subjects aren't good enough. I also thought those bits in the LGAT article were misleading, so what is the purpose of trying to name NLP a LGAT? There's plenty of trenchant well sourced criticism of NLP without trying to squeeze it into a label that doesn't fit. My understandidng of LGATs is that they tend to have a spritual or philosphical purpose or theme. Not really NLP's thing. Fainites 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm no fan of cults either. However, in this case, I don't believe its anti-cult .vs. pro-cult. I believe it is anti-cult .vs. anti-anti-cult. The struggle is against anti-cult propaganda's indiscriminate attacks. It is not about being pro-cult. True cults should be identified as such. But the label should not be tossed around freely.
For example, the term cult-apologist, presumes cult and apology, sort of like do you still beat your wife?. By saying someone is a cult-apologist, it implies a forgone conclusion that a cult is involved, which is not always the case. Just because someone says something is a cult (or LGAT), doesn't make it so.
LGAT means whatever the author wants it to mean. It is not a scientifically defined term. It has no universally accepted standard definition. It is mostly used by the anti-cult community, but that is burried behind PhD. and other academic credentials, or disallowed because we are prohibited from pointing to the rick ross website as an example of anti-cult propaganda, due to WP:OR.
The articles are all biased and slanted, written from the anti-cult perspective. Pick the company of your choice and you will read "ABC is a LGAT" in the first line of the cooresponding wiki article. This is justified because a reliable source said so. Yet, in the cult apologist article, you do not see "cult apologist is a pejorative and devisive term" as the first sentence, even though reliable sources have said so.
I am anti-cult (against cults). I am not anti-everything-that-is-an-organized-group.
The articles are unbalanced and written from the perspective of the anti-cult idiology.
I support any efforts to balance them and create true encyclopedic articles.
Peace in God. Lsi john 12:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do see what your struggling with. I objected to the misleading way it was written, to try and pretend people like Singer said something they didn't. If NLP was a LGAT, how would Singer have missed that? We had abusers (now banned) on the NLP site who were obsessed with calling it a cult and even invented cites. The thing is, cult is generally a perjorative term and its very easy for an anti cult obsessive to label many things a cult when another person may have been using the word in a different sense or indeed describing a variety of techniques used. To decide if something is a cult you have to look at the aim or purpose of the group or organisation, not the techniques it uses. The same applies to LGATs. I agree with you that these words should not be bandied about lightly. That's why I would like to stick to authoritative sources from people who've made a particular study of something rather than any old passing reference or list. As for NLP, its never been organised or coherent enough to be either a cult or a LGAT although undoubtedly some cults and LGATs use its techniques.Fainites 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to the extreme bias that the term connotates, there is actually a rule on wiki that prevents us from saying "xyz is a cult". We are required to say "Mr ABC said XYZ was a cult". If you need it, let me know and I'll look it up.
Sadly, there is no such rule for LGAT, though it is very often used as a LABEL instead of a TERM.
It would not be so bad, if
  1. It were actually well defined and documented. But it means something different to each author. This makes it a catch-all phrase and puts it in the category of a label, like cult. It is also used interchangably by many with the label cult.
  2. If we didn't use it interchangably both as a term and a label. As a term, it could be used to describe a specific type of training methodology. As a label, it is pejorative and prejudicial.
Lsi john 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. You have another email. Steve B110 11:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy

I'm somewhat interested. I've been following the (long) discussion. I just haven't had the time or energy to join in. I'm impressed by what you've accomplished so far, though. StokerAce 00:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


The accomplishment is shortlived as they almost immediately departed from the consensus version as soon as it was posted in order to insert misleading citations into a passage from Chaffin. When I complained, they altered a few words, said its now not a quote and put the citations back in again! Fainites 12:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you reconcile this: "It would be even more interesting to hear why 4 other editors so swiftly support what is plainly a misleading edit in violation of all policies. To what end? Fainites 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)"

with this: [2] ? RalphLendertalk 13:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As the page had been quiescent for some time I contacted a number of previous editors on the page to ascertain if they were still interested in editing the page. In fact apart from the ones who were still active anyway I think the only ones I didn't contact were Sarner and Raspor (who's been banned due to activities on another page I believe). What point are you trying to make and why are you following me around Wiki? Fainites 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following you around, I am just noting that you call it "interesting" or suspicious, that other editors, who disagree with you, comment on the article and then you contact other editors who, I assume, you hope will support your views...just noting the contrast and asking how you reconcile the two? The other part of the comment is bordering on WP:NPA when you label their actions "plainly a misleading edit in violation of all policies." RalphLendertalk 15:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting when the same editors rush to say how fantastic a proposed edit is without noting that , for example, it contains chunks of talkpage posts thus rendering it grammatically and factually meaningless, or, is an inaccurate quote, or is a repetition of something already in the article, and then claim 'consensus' that it isn't an inaccurate quote or a repetition. Presumably that kind of consensus could also declare the moon is made of green cheese. It's official! Fainites 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


In response to your latest comment on my talk page, don't worry, I understand. I've had some very frustrating discussions on this myself. I keep trying to bridge the gap between the two sides (as I see it, the DPeterson contingent on the one hand and the Sarner/Mercer group on the other) but I haven't made much progress. Most of these pages are just a mess of conflicting agendas, with the DPeterson side having played the Wikipedia battles much more effectively. The problem is, there are very few people who know the issues well enough to be able to moderate the discussion. You seem to be one of them, so I'm glad you're here! StokerAce 18:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. DDP would have a lot more credibility if others could see what was being done and could try to replicate it. StokerAce 17:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Identities

I just logged in and saw this on my talk page from a couple days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StokerAce#DPeterson_and_Dr._Becker-Weidman

I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Do you have any thoughts? StokerAce 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw it too. I remember seeing an allegation somewhere that AWeidman and DPeterson had used the same IP number. I think Shotwell asked for a checkuser but it was declined for some reason. The diffs don't actually show AWeidman and DPeterson using the same IP, but it certainly warrants a checkuser if it comes within checkuser rules. It would certainly explain alot about this puzzling obsession with inserting Becker-Weidman into the AT article in a misleading way. Its difficult to think of a rational reason for it as he's neither notable nor particularly relevent.Fainites 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


It's not clear whether it would be productive to pursue it, but you're right that it does explain a lot. I sense that the DPeterson crowd is tiring a bit. Those were some bizarre responses about the dead link. I wondered wether "DPeterson" had to take a break and some lower lever person was assigned to keep up the fight. StokerAce 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Violation of three Reverts Rule

You have violated the 3RR on Attachment Therapy. Please confine your edits accordingly or you may be blocked for violation of Wikipedia policy. DPetersontalk 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Attachment Therapy, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. DPetersontalk 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually you were undoing an agreed consensus version, which I have replaced. I have also removed unsourced or inaccurate information. Fainites 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

3rr

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Fainites_reported_by_User:DPeterson_.28Result:page_protected.29 StokerAce 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AT etc.

My sense of what's happening is that they've run out of reasonable objections to make and are now resorting to a blanket delay strategy (hence the objection to fixing links). You would think a mediator could resolve this, but it has been tried in the past to no avail. I'm not sure if an arbitrator will take it without first trying mediation, though. StokerAce 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing to keep in perspective. The world won't come to a halt in the matter of a day or two. And, if it does, then the article didn't matter anyway. Stay calm. Stay focused. Stay polite. Stick to relevant facts. You'll do fine. When it starts to become emotional, take a break. Calm, factual edits, will trump propaganda in the long run. Lsi john 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, RfC could be a good first step. StokerAce 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Please assume good faith. This was an inaccurate and bad faith edit, SqueakBox 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well they've also called me a single issue acount which one glance at my contribs will show is untrue. [3] VOB may not realise that his initials come up with no contribs.Fainites 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That has been fixed, SqueakBox 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh good.Fainites 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

How to know

Generally speaking, there's no way to know. You could put those pages on your watchlist, but they're high-traffic, so unless you're checking them constantly, you'd probably miss the update that added a report on you. You can also check what links to your User page, since reports will generally do that, for instance at [4]. Mangojuicetalk 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

FBM

Fine by me mate. I'd stuck it directly under the chart but I'm not picky. As you see, I sort-of organized your straw-poll and moved the off-topic comment to its own section. Lsi john 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta. I shifted it because it made it look as if Father Tree was saying 'so what' to you insteasd of saying 'so what' to the table. I've also put SD's comment back as it was in reply to my request for people to indicate whether they would agree to mediation and it looked a 'no' to me!Fainites 22:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm easy. Though it didn't look like a yes/no reply to the yes/no question to me, hence the 'comments' section. Lsi john 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think more editors (including me) need to read the 'how to edit' guidelines for properly indenting and *'s their remarks. I need to go look for myself, but I'd expect that indenting only applies if you are specifically addressing the user immediately above you, so that all answers to the same person are out-dented to the same level and separated with either blank line or *-bullet. Then again, I've been wrong before. Lsi john 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the older group of editors on the AT page think you progressively indent all the way through the thread, which has the effect of making the edits thinner and thinner. If I didn't do this they'd do it to my edits and then slap my wrist and say otherwise my edits were unreadable and I was bringing about the downfall of Western Civilization as we know it. I once did a thin line about indentophilia down the side of the page but there was a bit of a sense of humour failure about it and it got corrected. I thought you just indented to make it clear yours was specifically a reply to the one above. On alot of talkpages people just indent in turn. I've never known any editor make a fuss about it though, and correct your indentations for you. 6 of them doing it on one page too!Fainites 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't make a fuss, unless someone breaks up another editor's post and inserts comments within that post. That is something I consider very rude. ;) anyway.. back to work.. Peace in God. Lsi john 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

AT RfC

Hi Fainites - I share being a bit dim with this one myself. I'm not sure what you are asking but I think it is about the lack of agreement by the parties to what constitutes each of their rights and responsibilities in managing the issues as they have arisen in the articles. As well, how to name and manage conflicts of interest in a way that abides by those same rights and obligations. It seems to me that these are owed to every party to the conflict and yet they are not acknowledged nor administered by the parties themselves, so there is a sense of a lack of authority, not a personal authority but a collective one, which some might look to arbitration to provide. Does that answer your 'lack of what?'--Ziji (talk email) 11:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

text=thank you Thanks for all your work on Neuro-linguistic programming. Appreciated. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for your thanks! It's nice to be appreciated :) Fainites 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Becker-Weidman

I just noticed User:SamDavidson and Arthur Becker-Weidman both have a Master of Social Work degree. What a perplexing coincidence!! ~[[kinda]] 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't move my posts

'DO NOT MOVE MY TALK PAGE POSTS. That is unacceptable talk page behavior. RalphLendertalk 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)'

I moved your post because you interposed your post between mine and the editor to whom I was replying. That is very rude. Please stop doing it. Fainites 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Formating talk comments

Yes, to answer your question on the other page. You really need to read the wiki policy on that and learn to use formatting and indenting to show to whom you are responding. DPetersontalk 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. It was a straightforward response immediately after the previous editors post and Ralph interposed a lengthy post inbetween. That's not on and you know it. I was quite in order to put the posts back in time order. You have also yet again interefered with my last edit by removing all the spacing to make it difficult to read - something you have done before, in addition to altering my proposed article edits in the middle of the night before other editors have a chance to see them. There's no point trying to keep bullying and attacking me you know. I really don't care what you think or do in relation to me. I intend to edit articles in accordance with wiki policies. That's all. Now go and slap someone elses wrists. Fainites 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would read the wikipedia policy on talk page you would see that if you use formatting properly and indent appropriately, that one can do that...and I see that you did just that on the talk page for the Attachment Therapy article where you put a whole section out of order. RalphLender indented his comment so it is obvious it is a response to Orange's...if you'd use the indents properly you'd not have a problem here. One indents to indicate that the comment is a response to the preceeding comment...you've not done that here, but if you read the policy you'll eventually get it. DPetersontalk 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop cluttering up my talkpage with your ill mannered and inaccurate admonishments and please stop interfering with my talkpage posts. Fainites 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

In case you are not aware of this. Lsi john 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lsi. Well spotted! I have complained before about DPeterson et al making ANI's and the like without telling involved parties (I note not even FatherTree was informed). The way he then complains about the fact that you kindly informed Father Tree brings a whole new meaning to the word 'canvass'. Fainites 08:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I put in my tuppence' worth on the last of the three complaints. I don't usually get involved in disputes I know nothing about, but this one was positively making me sick. 3 complaints about the same thing? When the complainant has demonstrably done himself what he accuses the other editor of doing? And when there are really no grounds? My sense of justice was offended.--Ramdrake 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ramdrake. As you can see from the AT talkpage justice was done in the end, despite the efforts of the bringers of the ANI's to twist Shell's words. [16] As you can see s/he also complained about her/his words being copied around. Fainites 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration request concerning Attachment Therapy and listed you as an involved party. You can provide a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Attachment_Therapy. shotwell 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence

Please observe the text in the box at the very top of the evidence page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Testing

Testing new siggy [[User:Fainites|Fainites<sup>[[User:barley|t]]]] 12:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Try again --[[User:Fainites|Fainites<sup>[[User:Fainites|barley]]<sup>]] 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Give up Fainites 12:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Try again Fainites [[User_talk:Fainitesbarley]] 13:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Last ditch Fainites barley 13:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fainites barley 13:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


The last will work. You need to test it on other than this one because on wikipedia links that refer to the current page are bolded and the hyperlink removed. ----Action potential t c 04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help AP. Fainites barley 06:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (with a flourish!)

You Are Not An Experiment

I had to look up "dead chuffed" to see it if it was positive or negative. We don't really use that expression in Canada ;) But thanks for the kind words. However I think you might misunderstand my intentions a little bit. This isn't an experiment in the formal sense. This is my attempt to gain some hands-on experience with tricky consensus-building problems, to see what I can learn about the process. Also, I tend to have a personal interest in the articles I am involved with, in the sense that I think they're fascinating and/or socially significant topics. (Oh, and the book would be years away yet.)

Anyway. I'm sure we'll be seeing more of each other as the NLP article evolves.

Connirae Andreas

Hi. I've seen that your field of interest (at least one of them) is on NLP Now I have written an article on Connirae Andreas and there's been raised the question whether she is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. I was wondering if have an opinion or sources in mind that may give clarity there? Sincerely Davin7 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Davin. Thanks for message. I'm sorry to say I know nothing about Connirae Andreas. The name certainly doesn't appear on the cover of Frogs into Princes although you say she is a co-author. But then I'm not an "NLPer" as it were. The person you probably want to ask is User:Action potential who is far more knowledgable on NLP than I. Fainites barley 21:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (added for completeness)

Thanks anyway. Got some more support now it seems. Davin7 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)