User talk:Ravenswing

If you post to my talk page, I will reply exclusively here. If I posted recently to your talk page, I will read responses exclusively there.

I am disinterested in hate mail or rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym instead.

Beyond that, I keep my AfD work over on AfD. Don't write me here to dispute my posts or (as is more commonly the case) lobby me to change my vote. Anything you have it in mind to say here is more properly said over there, for all to see.

• Archive #1 - Entries archived from June 2005 through March 2006
• Archive #2 - Entries archived from March 2006 through May 2006
• Archive #3 - Entries archied from May 2006 through December 2006
• Archive #4 - Entries archived from December 2006 through April 2007

Ninjaken and Good faith

Please assume good faith when making statements in public debates. Alan.ca 12:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It took me thirty seconds, using Google alone, to come up with six sound references for the existence of the weapon. As I said on the talk page, I won't even touch the "did this weapon really exist in period?" maelstrom, but there is overwhelming evidence that the weapon exists today (oh, like every single bloody movie with a "ninja" in it), and filing repeated prods and AfDs on various permutations of the article is misuse of process. The way to request sourcing for a blatantly notable subject is through the use of citation tags, not through prods and AfDs. As it happens, I stated explicitly that I was not accusing you of bad faith, but this isn't the first time you've advocated deletion over taking a few minutes to source a blatantly notable article (Brian Mulroney being a startling example}. The governing reasons given in the official deletion policy are" "Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed;" "Because we don't see any sources and aren't looking for any either" isn't among them.  RGTraynor  14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

It's hyprocritical of you to denounce me for personal attacks when ccwaters has made many against me. What are you, his personal watchdog? It's also hypocritical of you to place a copyvio on the Coco the Bear page and not on the many other mascot pages that use the same info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JaMikePA (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Having reviewed your conversations, I'm completely satisfied both that the personal attacks have all gone one way and in my assessment of your behavior and demeanor. If I needed any supporting evidence of your tendency to go off on people unprovoked, you've just supplied it; in point of fact, I have never edited the Coco the Bear page, nor was the editor who placed a copyvio notice on it. (That being said, if you genuinely think it's possible for one person to monitor each and every one of the 1.7 million articles on Wikipedia for copyright violations, go right ahead.)  RGTraynor  19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is interesting. Another altercation over ccwaters. How interesting that Addhoc and I had a dispute because he was Muero's bodyguard (or was Muero himself, I'm not sure), and now you and I have one over ccwaters. Maybe I'll bring this to the attention of other Wikipedians, who can look over both of your edit history's, to see if this is indeed a trend. We can't have gangs on wikipedia, can we? (On an unrelated note, I also found your "WTF" box on your userpage hypocritical. Just thought I'd mention it under the appropriate heading) The strokes 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(laughs) And you have the nerve to complain about being stalked and harassed? Do you have any legitimate purpose for posting on my talk page? Cease doing so at once.  RGTraynor  20:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm not 100% sure on this, but checking out the talk page of a user who has is writing complaints about you doesn't constitute stalking. And I do have a legitimate reason for posting here - alterting you that I've realized your motive, and will follow up if need be. (Only replying on your talk page because you asked me a question. Hope this doesn't infuriate you) Cheers The strokes 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll humour you, but I'll be blunt, go right ahead. Just what is it do you honestly expect to achieve by making other Wikipedians aware that RG and Ccwaters *watch* each other's back? Even if that were true, do you really believe other do-well editors will sympathize with your behaviour and condemn RG and Ccwaters's given all of your histories? There is no Wikipedian guideline/policy prohibiting one editor from guarding another editor's page against vandalism. There is also no Wikipedian guideline/policy prohibiting editors from supporting each other's views... and gangs? Nope... no policy prohibiting that either. In fact, Wikipedia is all about gangs. I mean as far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia has 2 gangs. A gang of editors seeking to improve Wikipedia, and a gang of editors seeking to disrupt Wikipedia. You just happen to be on the disruptive side right now locked into a dispute with three well established editors (emphasis necessary).

I apologize, RG. I don't mean to undermine your ability to respond as I am aware that you are quite capable, but I simply felt compelled to chip in. — Dorvaq (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens, I don't mind at all. You just proved your own quite accurate point; that many editors watch talk pages and keep an eye out for vandals or other idjits. I've had vandalism on my page reverted by editors with whom I've never had any interactions. Myself, I watch ten other user pages, and it's been more in the past, but when I was approaching 600 pages on my watchlist I figured to trim back a bit. As it happens, CC and I've worked on many of the same articles over the last couple years, we're both long-time AHL fans, we agree on a bunch of things, I think he's a huge asset to the WikiProject, and if I'm ever again in his neck of the woods I'll find out if he wants to take in a game. Anyone who doesn't like that or finds something sinister in that can stick it in his ear.  RGTraynor  01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

People "watching other people's backs", and subsequent "gangs" are absolutely NOT good for wikipedia. In fact, it undermines what wikipedia is all about. People are less likely to voice their own opinions if they feel they have to conform to a gang, and so you get polar thought processes forming on what should be a spectrum. That's the basis of political parties. You force people into certain cohorts, and whether they're 100% conservative or 51% conservative, they are only exposed to conservative POV in their political meetings. Those that are 51% eventually agree with the conservative POV (as that's all they're exposed to), and eventually become 100% conservative. Then they do things like fight against abortion, even though they may not really care either way. See Cohort effect for further reading. The strokes 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, you don't need to conform to a gang. We'd be pretty happy if you felt the need to conform to WP:VANDAL and WP:NPA.  RGTraynor  01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Post this discussion on a page for other Wikipedians to comment on. Defending myself, and explaining how things got to be as bad as they did is pointless when people are so intent on holding other peoples' points of view. Your immature responses just validate my opinion of you (and your kind). I hope when you go on to junior high next year, you'll step back and realize that spending all your time on wikipedia is not healthy. Cheers, I feel better about this disagreement knowing for sure that you're a ********. If only I'd found Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RGTraynor before engaging you in conversation The strokes 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

question

hi, i was wondering if you can help me with image deletion. I have uploded some but do now know how to delete them now. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edgarszilde (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Richard Clune

The Richard Clune was magically recreated by User:HockeyPrincess who doesn't seem to grasp the concept of notability, but rather just wants to promote all of her favourite players. Should the Richard Clune article be put on {{afd}}, after already being deleted by an uncontested {{prod}} tag? Flibirigit 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not now it shouldn't be; he's playing for Iowa, and so passes WP:BIO under the "fully professional league" clause. What I would do is ruthlessly trim it to encyclopedic length.  RGTraynor  00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Which I've just done. By the bye, has anyone sat down with her and discussed relative notability? I've seen some nitpicking on her talk page, but only that much.  RGTraynor  00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The strokes ccwaters 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RGTraynor ;-) The strokes 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:WesselHorst.jpg

After I see this image, I realize if we can use PD-Germany on it. Martin 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt we could.  RGTraynor  15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that "A photograph that by the very nature of the subject's death 77 years ago has to be more than 75 years old is by that very fact public domain." ? Do you mean that the photographer died 77 years ago? Chanueting 09:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

learning is fun!

i just wanted to let you know that in reading your responses, i was forced to look up 'maelstrom' AND 'polemic.' my project for this week is to use both in the same sentence. kudos! the_undertow ^talk 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hah! I've always said that any day in which I learn something new is a good one. Glad to know I'm not the only one; you've just made my night. Thank you kindly!  RGTraynor  03:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

all this and 'hagiography' as well? please remember, this is english wikipedia. dood, are you using a thesaurus!? tell me. i'm seriously getting out my 'word per square' toilet paper. the_undertow ^talk 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm just one of those wordy blokes who thought that flipping through dictionaries to see new words was fun when I was a kid. (grins)  RGTraynor  13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

well, tonite im gonna have a few pints. while i imbibe, i will be making up some new words. that way, i appear smarter to those who don't look them up. dont feel bad if you cant understand them. they are going to be quite intellectual. thanks for being super-awesome <---- i just made that up. dont even try to comprehend it. the_undertow ^talk 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, go for it.  RGTraynor  01:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for that. Just like to make sure people are aware of whats going on. Hate to see things slip through the cracks cause someone didn't notice. --Djsasso 01:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Schools and notability

Namaste RGTraynor,

I went to the WP:NOTE talk pages and read the two old discussions regarding trying to set notability guidelines for schools, its not very encouraging. This seems to be a battleground for the Inclusionistas and Deletionieros and neither side seems willing to give any ground. I have to say that I would probably be considered a running-dog Deletionist. I think there are many things that are verifiable and sourcable, perhaps even notable, but are just not encyclopedic. There is the whole rest of the web out there, isn't there?

But...The greatest thing I learned in college was when I was arguing an obscure point on a test question I had gotten wrong on some minor point relating to the Kreb's cycle (relates to energy creation and use in cell metabolism). The instructor let me go on for a while and answered my points and then said, Bill, is this the hill you want to die on?"

Well, I looked at her for a moment and then felt rather stupid and said, "No," and she said, "Very well then, lets move on."

She meant it in a joking way and it wasn't at all a putdown. She was a great teacher and we became friends after the class was over, but I never forgot that question.

When my daughter was in her pre- and teens there were times when she wanted to dye her hair green or do her school shopping at Goodwill and wear polyester Marcia Brady shifts or three full-length black slips to school or make soup out of one of every vegetable from the Albertson's and I would think, "Is this the hill I want to die on?" and decide that no, it wasn't.

Really Bad News friends? Riding with people who have been drinking? Yeah, I'll die on those hills, but few others are worth the fight. I was a single parent and I credit that teacher with my sanity and Amelia's unique perfection.

I bring all this up because I see so much time and energy being wasted over this debate and whatever I think about it, this hill is not worth dying on. I also feel that the issue is hindering the advancement of civility here, and if I have any ulterior motive, for this or WP as a whole, the promotion of civility is it.

I am thinking about proposing that all schools be considered notable, subject only to verifiability and as far as I'm concerned, a phone book entry would be sufficient.

You've been around awhile, certainly longer than me, so I want to ask you if you think there is a snowball's chance of this being accepted. I think the inclusionists have an advantage in this battle and the fact that 85% of the school AfD's are resulting in keep seems to show a broad consensus in general, if not in every case.

If you feel this worth persuing or have any other thoughts on the matter, let me know. If I do persue it I would like to have a group of people from both sides onboard to launch the proposal. I'm not trying to stack the vote, I just don't want to fight old battles over again.

I'm posting this on some other talk pages to get a sense of the mood out there. Thanks!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 08:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well ... here's my answer. For one thing, the mood is changing. That "85%" you read about in an old essay is, explicitly, based on two-year old data. The number of school-related AfDs that succeed in deletion is well up over 50% now, and the ones that survive are the ones that come up with some serious sourcing, which is all to the good. There've even been two high school AfDs succeed in the last month, something that would have been inconceivable two years ago.

Now beyond that ... yes, to a degree, the hill is worth dying on, because Wikipedia's future is being fought out in a lot of these tiny ground actions. The degree to which the "who cares, it's all notable" attitude takes over is the one that will lead to "who cares, the facts are probably right" that you see a lot in AfD discussions, with "seems notable" answers that plainly just take the articles' assertions on faith. That's the problem I have with the inclusionist creed, because for every inclusionist who believes "Everything should stay in if the facts check out," there are two who believe "Everything should stay in," and we don't have a worthwhile encyclopedia: we have Myspace.  RGTraynor  20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize the data was 2 years old, I guess I should have noticed. I actually agree, as mentioned above, about setting a high bar for what is encyclopedic rather than notable. I've only been around a short time and felt that the acrimoniousness of the debates was more harmful than the inclusion, that was the reason I was sounding people out on this. I've since learned that it was much more acrimonious in the past. Hard to believe. Anyway, thanks for your input, based on it and the other responses I've received I'll probably drop it. Maybe it was just a late-night bee in my bonnet.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Freeholder AfDs

I see you've commented on the Sue Shilling AfD. There are also discussions regarding Freeholders Joe Kelly and Alisa Cooper.

I must warn you, however, that another editor has taken up a very dogged defense of these articles. He demands to see policy where none exist, then declares our position invalid when we try to cite a guideline. The Frank Finnerty AfD went on far longer than was truly necessary.

It's up to you if you want to take up these discussions. I just thought a fair warning of what may come of it would be in order. DarkAudit 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:Canvassing

As noted on DarkAudit's talk page, the above is almost certainly in violation of WP:Canvassing. I have asked DarkAudit to provide an acceptable explanation for his actions, before the violation is be noted on all of the relevant AfDs. Alansohn 03:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Beyond which I am more than a touch angry at mudslinging going on in defense of an article which was a clear copyvio and speedied as such. I strongly recommend, Alansohn, that you rein in your rhetoric and take a good hard look at WP:OWN before daring to do so again, because while I just had doubts about your objectivity before, your credibility just took a huge hit.  RGTraynor  13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You have been directly involved in a violation of Votestacking and refused to take the appropriate action and step away from the matter in question, instead choosing to dive into a series of AfDs you had studiously ignored for over five days. These seems to be a rather clear cause-and-effect relationship from the tainted solicitation and your decision to ignore the warning included above and participate in the AfDs you were pushed to participate in. If you have a specific claim about a copyright violation, you can address it as appropriate. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Alansohn 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You cannot imagine that I am looking towards you for neutrality, credibility or approval in this matter; I'm quite astonished that someone with as massive a conflict of interest as yours and who has posted copyvios in clear violation of federal law, never mind merely of Wikipedia policy, would dare to levy any charges at all, never mind ringing defenses of his own tainted actions. You certainly gave me no "warning," explicit or otherwise, but I'll accord you an unambiguous one; should DarkAudit feel compelled, as he implied he might, to file a RfC, only some serious evidence that you felt Wikipedia policy applied to you just as much and as readily as you invoke it against others would deter me from lending my own observations on your conduct.  RGTraynor  14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Alan gets quite unhinged at times. He has accused me of nefarious motives and poor faith. I am wondering if an RFC might be in order. I take that back - a suggestion that the user be more civil and WP:AGF is perhaps in order. I will so undertake. Eusebeus 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... I didn't like his style terribly much before the past few days, but there's no law requiring people to conform to my beliefs. This bad faith nonsense over copyvios, though, that was an eyeopener, and it really looks like this guy is obsessed with "winning" over other considerations. For a number of editors, "bad faith" nominations seems to mean "I really don't like this AfD!!" Even as caustic as I get, I'm very chary about slinging that accusation around, and I never have when an article I've created myself has come under fire -- it's a huge conflict of interest, and if there's genuine and obvious bad faith someone else will raise the subject anyway. Who knows, a soft approach might work. We can but hope.  RGTraynor  13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Worth a shot, particularly since Alan is a committed participant, even if I personally dislike his tone and have been on the wrong end of several ill-conceived accusations from him. I left him a message and he has delivered an answer that could almost be seen as polite, in the dusk with the light behind her. If no change is forthcoming, I think an RFC might at some point be appropriate, if but to solicit a wider expression of concern (or potentially lack thereof I suppose) and to get him to understand that at times his actions towards other editors is wanting - particularly a failure to assume good faith. Eusebeus 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... he's a jerk, but I've no reason to doubt his desire to improve the project.  RGTraynor  19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Insight.

I've recently filed a request for assistance on a sourcing dispute. The path is at the bottom of my post, but before you read the request, I would ask that you please not respond to Endroit's request for comment unless you agree with him, as I do not want to be accused of attempting to solicit support.

The reason I am approaching you is to obtain your insight on the issue. I basically would like to know if I'm reading into policy right, or if the source is in fact reliable enough without secondary sources. Thanks. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See: Request for assistance

This is a slam dunk, actually. WP:SPS, an official policy, holds that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." A personal website is generally held - and emphasis on the "generally" - to be suitable only for uncontroversial vitae curriculae such as birthdates, birthplaces, family info and other suchlike. Under no circumstances whatsoever would I consider an assertion that this hairdresser services specific, named top actresses reliable on nothing more than the hairdresser's naked word, and neither should you.  RGTraynor  22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but could you also comment on my external links concerns. They were:

• Points 3, 4, and 11 of Links normally to be avoided.
• The fact that the article is about Frédéric Fekkai, and not about his products/services, and
• Under EL guidelines, external links should add information about the subject at hand that can not be readily added to the article. As I have mentioned before, the website doesn't add anything about Frédéric Fekkai that the article doesn't have already, other than his date & place of birth — which can easily be added to article as opposed to linking the website.

Now I know point 1 of WP:EL#What should be linked is pretty explicit as it states, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." (Emphasis added). But, does this mean official sites should be added regardless of what they offer? Perhaps I should bring this up for discussion on the WP:EL talk page to have this be made more clear within the guidelines.

Feel free to dispute/support my concerns on the Frédéric Fekkai discussion page for all those involved to see, as my points were listed there as well. Thanks again. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your input RG. However, as mentioned on the talk page, I am not fully convinced that there are no exceptions to the addition of official websites, but I will pursue clarification on the WP:EL discussion page where it would be more appropriate. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman AfD

Can't speak for the others, but I was deliberately not taking the bad faith element of the nomination into account; just because a nomination's been made for the wrong reasons doesn't necessarily mean that there's not a case for deletion. In this case there patently isn't, and the nominator seems unable to see the difference between an unnecessary content fork and a useful splitting of an over-long article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you Ravenswing, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 22:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Baseless accusations of fraud in Blue Ribbon citations

There seem to be a few unresolved issues left festering from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timberview Middle School in which you had repeatedly implied that claims regarding Blue Ribbon Schools Program awards added to school articles after AfDs had been initiated were manufactured. In the following snippet (followed by my response) you have the nerve to call me a liar, without basing your accusation on a single shred of evidence. It's time you put up or shut up. Alansohn 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what I persist in asserting, as I always have, that the evidence is that this award is not nearly as notable as you like to believe it is - as witness how very few school article creators know squat about it - that the "five percent" total seems to be BS, and that if it were it would be a part of the article well before a frantic scramble to prove notability under the gun of AfDs; you present, and persist in presenting, the same old straw man. In no instance have I alleged that a citation was fraudulently made, nor do I have any reason to believe that this has been the case. Is there some reason we ought to know about why you have been so persistent in asking about fraud?  RGTraynor  18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance and non-existence are not one and the the same. As you well know, many of these middle school articles being subject to AfD had been created by well-intentioned sixth graders who are more familiar with the burritos served by the hair-netted lunch lady, than the Wikipedia rules and policies that constitute notability for the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. I have provided five quotations above that show that you persist in believing that I have made false claims of notability for Blue Ribbon schools. Now, in a staggering violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, you have now explicitly called me a liar without even a shred of evidence to support your allegation, despite the fact that I have provided you with all of the sources required for you to make an appropriate judgment. My claim of notability for the award is not based on a 5% threshold (the actual percentage is a bit lower); the claim of notability is based on statements that the Blue Ribbon Schools program is "the highest honor the U.S. Education Department can bestow upon a school", a statement contained and sourced in the article for the program and the articles for nearly every single one of the schools were I have cited the award in response to an AfD. Alansohn 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, I refer you to the disclaimer at the top of this page regarding keeping AfD discussions on AfD, or the talk pages thereof. Secondly, I stand by my repeated statement that these awards seem to appear far more frequently than the oft-quoted 5% would support; that you keep insisting on reading more words into that terribly simple statement than exist is your problem, not mine. Thirdly, speaking of putting words into someone's mouth, this is the definition of explicitly calling someone a liar: "You are a liar." Seen those words from me? Hm, guess I didn't "explicitly" say anything of the sort, but from a person who conflated "You are mistaken" and/or "You are careless in fact checking" with lies, I shouldn't have expected differently. Fourthly, no matter how much the notion seems to drive you berserk with fury, we disagree about the innate notability of these awards (the US government likewise claimed that Iraq had WMDs, and 3000 dead American soldiers still hasn't made that anything other than bullshit), and the degree your haranguing is likely to change my mind is remote. Fifthly, I've neither the time (yet) or the inclination (yet) to go through DOE's records and give the true figure on how many schools, total, have been given these awards since the start of the program, and the inclusionists would regret provoking me to do so, because I think the total's far closer to 20% or better, which would blow holes in the notability defense.

Finally, this is the second time you've barged onto my talk page over your one-sided vendettas - you can't claim any other motive for this one than Having! It! Out! - and it is the last. I didn't respond to your latest diatribe on the AfD because it had already spun out far too long and far too off topic, and keeping within the bounds of WP:CIVIL over your numerous and ongoing direct insults wouldn't have gotten any easier. Cease posting to this page at once.  RGTraynor  07:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• As part of your continuing delusions regarding school notability, you still persist in calling claims false, while simultaneously acknowledging that you have no basis in fact other than your rather insistent supposition that it must be so. Now you conflate a sourced claim of notability with a rant about claims of Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq, a tangent of rather epic proportion. As you haven't even bothered (yet) to check out any of the patently false allegations you have made, and as it seems that you have been "provoked" to doing so, I think it's high time that you either put up or shut up. You've made many false claims; You still haven't backed up a single one of them with anything but personal attacks and patently uncivil insults and false allegations. Alansohn 11:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Reverting the issue does not make it go away. Can you support your allegation or not? Alansohn 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • You have made rather specific -- and false -- allegations of fraud regarding my edits. You know full well that addressing your malicious edits on your talk page is where they should be addressed and you know full well that the charge of vandalism is entirely unjustified. You are being asked yet one more time to justify your claims of fraud. Alansohn 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)