Talk:Actuarial Outpost/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

Contents 1 Request to embed image 2 Fark.com page as an example? 3 Avi, as a self proclaimed expert on this web site you wrote an article about 4 References? 5 Discussion rather than deletion 6 AO "--isms"; notable or not 7 Bad faith and Intimidation 8 Waterwheel editing other's comments? 9 Skip, Waterwheel, and all of your collective ‘friends’

Request to embed image

How can I embed this image? little wavey guy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Outpost Member (talk • contribs) 19:59, May 30, 2006.

Welcome, OM. You seem to be new here. Wiki protocol is to add all new comments to the bottom. Regarding your graphic, in a nutshell, you cannot. You may link to it, but for it to show it needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia, and only graphics which are public domain, or you hold the rights to, and are willing to release some of theose rights (see Creative Commons or the GNU licenses) can be added. -- Avi 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Avi. I don't believe I've spoken with you before. I was wondering if the list of acceptable image rationales above should include fair use, as it is a part of American copyright law, the law which binds Wikipedia due to the location of its servers. --Ssbohio 14:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess fair use is acceptable where wikipedia allows it, see Wikipedia:Fair use. I don't think any of the rationales apply to the wavey smiley. -- Avi 02:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fark.com page as an example?

I was just looking at Fark.com, and they have a long list of "Farkisms" to give people a sense of the community. Several entries mention specific posters by their user names, along with phrases that they coined. Avi, since you directed me to this page as an example of what the AO page should look like, should we go in this direction? Maybe come up with a list of "AO-isms" along with the people who coined them? I'd be willing to take the lead on this part of the project. SkipSmith 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The farkisms will likely be removed, per WP:NOT, at least they should be. See here: Talk:Fark.com#Cleanup -- Avi 19:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate on farkisms does show that my idea to include some information on the sense of community on a message board is not "trolling" or a "vanity project." People have been discussing eliminating the farkisms for months, and it hasn't happened yet, so maybe it's appropriate after all? SkipSmith 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Fark is a much bigger, much more pervasive internet meme, and yet it is debating this issue, a fortiori the AO shouldn't start. That the AO is in and of itself notable, yes, that anything like "Clank" or "Wiki-vandalizers-never-wases" ;) is meaningful in the AO, let alone here, is not.

We shouldn't debate an issue because the editors over at the Fark.com page are debating it? That's a strange argument. And clearly "Clank" is notable in the context of the AO, given that my new wikistalker is using it. SkipSmith 06:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be rediculous, I used Clank as a cute way to let you know that your cute and cuddly self is well known, Skip. It is no more notable than you are, especially since you think you invented it 8-) . This is ludicrous; there is nothing to debate, the only thing notable about the AO is the AO, that an internet community exists for the purposes of actuarial research, collaberation, exam support, and recreation. That's all. -- Avi 14:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you are TheActuary as well as Avi? Isn't the use of sock puppets against wiki policy? But never mind that --- I'm actually interested in a discussion, rather than trying to track people down on the web and intimidate them. One critically important thing to point out --- I am not Abducens. As amusing as it was to see you guess my identity incorrectly, I feel I need to set the record straight on this, given the history of harassment and personal attacks against those who disagree with the "in-crowd" at the AO. I want to be absolutely sure that you realize that I am not Abducens, Abducens had his banning at the AO reversed by Tom, but chose not to return precisely because of these kinds of threats and harassment. The only reason I even dare to speak up is because I am pretty well insulated from the threats of retaliation that have driven others from this discussion and from the AO. In order to completely verify that I am not Abducens, I am signing this post with my work IP address. The only reason I'm opening myself to this kind of potential harassment is because Abducens is a friend of mine, and I don't want to see people try to damage his career. 128.111.222.211 19:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I am not User:TheActuary, although I do know who he is. I do not know who Abducens is in real life. Nor do I know the real life identites of SkipSmith, Joe Smythe, Danratheresque, Kentucky whatshisname, Wikieditor21, etc. Whomever you are, you have nothing to fear from me. Now, what is between you and Skip, TheActuary, glenn, Joe Smythe, DanRather, Abducens, etc. is your business. How many of the aforementioned are the same people, I haven't the faintest idea. The sockpuppetry accusation against Joe Smythe, et.al. was based on different id's, being newly created, and making the exact same edits word-for-word. Wiki admins have ways of finding out the IP's so the innocent (such as myself) have nothing to fear. - Avi 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So you do know who User:TheActuary is? Have you reported this id as a sock puppet? Is this person perpetuating a false impression given they are not even an actuary? I bet they don't even know the difference between Gompertz's law and Makeham's law.

In any event, given the lack of sources for this article, it probably deserves to be re-nominated for the scrap heap. Wiki Editor 21 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

TheActuary is not sock puppetry and is a practising actuary. Renomination not necessary, archived discussion indicates article remains. Thanks! TheActuary 31:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what a sockpuppet is? I have wiki-linked it for you. As for the person in question, I do not believe that to be the case as I have only seen use of one Wiki ID. Yes, this person happens to be a credentialed actuary of one of the societies—are you? As for re-nomination, that is your perogative. -- Avi 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I have added two references and will hopefully add more. -- Avi 22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi, as a self proclaimed expert on this web site you wrote an article about

Don't they have some sort of code of conduct that people aren't supposed to expose other users, like where they live or work? Didn't some guy do that recently, but he didn't receive the punishment of banishment as was the precedent for violating this community's rules in such a way? So I guess certain posters are above the laws and principles of your site?Gadfilous 02:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I know to what you are referring (a fax?), and I believe you must take it up with th eboards administrator. He is the only one that can ban that I know of. Of course, Wikipedia is not the forum for your arguments; the Outpost itself is. If you like, e-mail me the details and I will forward them to the board admin for you. -- Avi 03:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I heard the guy who violated the privacy policy was one of the board's founders, so I doubt the rules apply to him. That's a shame.MarkTween 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

References?

What do the references reference? That you have a history of trollish behaviour with other boards?Gadfilous 02:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand? Those are references to the history of the AO as posted by some of its original members. Steve White openly uses his real name, you know, I've communicated with him a number of times. -- Avi 03:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion rather than deletion

I worked on compiling some common "AO-isms," copying the style on the fark.com page. My work was deleted within 2 minutes without comment. In the future, please don't delete the hard work of others without discussing it with the community first. Thanks. 88.8.45.31 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is that AO-isms are not notable. Please see the talk archive. -- Avi 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the talk archive. By "concensus" did you mean "my opinion"? Other editors here think they are notable, and other pages have included such sections. I'll put it back up later when I have time to actually give people a chance to read it and weigh in.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.8.45.31 (talk • contribs) 11:59, June 25, 2006 (UTC)

Only the editor who vehemntly denied he or she was Abducens felt they were notable. No one else does. Clank is never used anymore. Moran pre-dates the AO by a long shot (it's a farkism), never-wases is only used in an old sig. They are all non-notable, unused, and completely unbecoming of Wikipedia. -- Avi 21:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest here --- there are only about 3-4 people participating in this discussion, so saying 1 person disagreed is not exactly a landslide. Clank is still used, even by you in the archived discussion. The other expressions are still used on a fairly regular basis as well. I guess "AO-isms" wouldn't look good in an advertisement to bring Glenn more business, but they are perfectly appropriate for a wiki entry, as the fark.com page shows. I'll put them back up later when I have time, and we'll see if we get feedback from more people than just you. 88.8.45.31

/lol I used Clank as a tongue-in-cheek “homage” to Skip, who is at the very least, a close personal friend of Abducens. I have not seen the other expressions used, outside of a few sig lines. They are not notable. To quote fark.com: “Fark's comments threads are often smattered with "Farkisms" or "FARK.com clichés" (essentially, in-jokes) which are an integral part of the community culture and used in myriad discussions at the website, regardless of whether they apply to the topic at hand.” This does not apply to the AO. I just clicked on three other examples from Category:Internet forums, and none of them have cliches. I'd bet the vast majority do not, which bolsters my contention that they are not notable, especially in the AO, where there use is minimal-to-nonexistant outside of a few people, at most. -- Avi 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it applies to the AO quite directly, just as this kind of material applies to other message boards. There is no concensus on this: it looks like you and Skip disagreed, and that was the end of the discussion. So please, stop treating this page as your personal property and let other people participate in its creation. If you like, we could do some searches on the AO to find out just how common the AO-isms I've listed are, and try to agree on how common they must be to be notable. 88.8.45.31

By all means, I never claimed, nor do claim, to own or control this article. Rather, I have an interest in keepin it in-line with Wiki's polices of notability and encyclopedic content. Please look at the following articles, and tell me if you think it is common to have cliche lists for Category:Internet forums: Gaia Online, IGN, Vault Network, Something Awful Forums, Straight Dope, etc. I've picked some larger ones, but it appears that the vast majority of articles do not feel that "—isms" are appropriate. Thus, if anything, the burden of proof is on the editor wanting to ADD that information. If you can make a valid case why these phrases are particularly notable, other than your apparent desire to immortalize Abducens et al., then they can, and should, belong in the article. However, I am firmly of the belief that at this point they are not, and so I will move them to the talk page here for further discussion. I would suggest polling other editors for their opinion. As an aside, I would suggest reading WP:3RR before making warning notes in edit summaries 8-) . -- Avi 14:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AO "--isms"; notable or not

Anonymous user, 88.8.45.31, wishes to add the following to the article:

As with all message board communities, the AO has developed its own unique character and style. The following are some common "AO-isms" used by members of the community:

1. Clank!: First used to taunt a Syracuse fan over the number of free throws missed by their opponents in the 2003 NCAA chapionship, the term has spread in use to a general mocking term whenever someone fails to make a point with a post.

   Super-Bowl-Never-Wases: First used to taunt a Philadelphia fan over their losses in NFC championship games, the term "Never-wases" is now applied to any perception of failure (i.e., "Exam-Passer-Never-Wases)."

   Meltdown: Used in response to an exceptionally hostile or virulent post to indicate the original poster has lost control.

   Your a Moran: A phrase with 2 deliberate misspellings, one based on a well-known photo circulating on the internet. Often used in a self-depreciating way as a response to someone pointing out a spelling error or gramatical mistake.

   42: A number always included in poll options, probably named after a poster of the same name.

   Sockpuppet: An emoticon created by Tom Troceen for thse posters who often say "let me get the sockpuppets out and explain it to you."

   NTTAWWT: "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That," a winking reference to a "politically correct" desire not to offend any group.

My opinion and arguments are that firstly, these are not notable, as described in the talk section above and secondly, the anonymous poster is demonstrating ignorance of, or confusion about, both AO history and the use of some of these phrases:

1. Firstly, "Clank"'s usage was restricted to basically one user before he was banned (and allegedly started to vandalize this article on Wiki), and is moribund and defunct now. Same with "never wases"; same poster, extremely limited usage, and these two seem to be a method for this poster, or his friends, to get some sort of "revenge" or immortalization, after being banned from the community.
2. Secondly, meltdown has been an internet meme (google "netwok meltdown" for example) way before its use on the AO.
3. Thirdly, Moran was a farkism way before it came to AO; it came FROM fark (see Fark.com.
4. Fourthly, the etymology of 42 is obvious, and pre-dated the eponymous poster. I presume I don't have to spell this one out to the Internet community.
5. Fifthly, the name of the emoticon is "Handpuppet" not "Sockpuppet" and it comes from a particular post by one poster, and it was created by glenn, not Tom.
6. Sixthly, NTTAWWT is a well-known acronym, http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/NTTAWWT that comes from Seinfeld.

So, in a nutshell, EVERYTHING here either has nothing to do with the AO, is defunct, or is a pure vanity play, and so I strongly believe NONE of this belongs in the article. Please comment. Thank you. -- Avi 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of those who disagrees with Avi. The Fark.com page has a list of cliches and -isms, so why shouldn't we? I think it gives a nice feel for the community. Thanks to Avi for some of the factual corrections --- we should certaintly include them in future versions of the article. However, I'm not sure what to say about all the bizarre motives attributed to my contributions. I'm wondering if the hostility to my contribution comes not from its content, but from Avi's personal grudge against someone else. 83.60.31.172 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)—The previous is the user's first edit 83.60.31.172 (talk • contribs) -- Avi 23:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't checked in here in a while, so I didn't see this until now. I think a list of AO-isms would be an appropriate addition to the article. SkipSmith 05:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to think of some AOisms that would be helpful for users. Is ATGTF or "another thread gone to flirting" one that is still in common usage or would be helpful from a historical perspective? How about DFTUYR or "don't forget to update your resume" which posters who spam the board with meaningless post count padding use to joke about their "contributions" to the board? p=p+1? I suppose it is pointless to contribute to Wiki since it is so pwned by white knights like Avi. A community of one.Entimoligism 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)—The previous is the user's first edit Entimoligism (talk • contribs) -- Avi 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think ATGTF and p=p+1 might be worth a mention. And don't mind Avi's snide asides --- he's apparently not interested in feedback from other users, and does all he can to discourage it. SkipSmith 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, Skip. These are not votes, these are consensus-finding discussions, and sock/meat puppetry needs to be taken into consideration. If you would like to find out more, I would recommend reading about Wikipedia itself. -- Avi 01:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA yourself, Avi. SkipSmith 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

“snide asides”, Skip, was uncalled for. What did I post that was uncalled for? -- Avi 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've called me "petty," "vituperative," and "childish," among other things. I let it slide in the interests of maintaining the discussion. In fact, feel free to call me whatever names you like, so long as you stop trying to intimidate and suppress dissent. SkipSmith 02:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me what is uncalled for is Avi's own emotional attachment in defending his own contributions and in preventing other parties from disagreeing with them. His whole attitude of placing the burden of proof on anyone else who wants to add content when he himself has no such burden of proof even in proving notability of his project of which he is clearly some sort of supporting member. If his site truly was notable, then someone not affiliated with the site would note such and write the article rather than resorting to his own self promotion and vanity. "Members of the site should remember that Wikipedia is not generally a place where you write about your own projects. If your community becomes famous, let others write about it." This type of non-notable graffiti ultimately cheapens and discredits the whole wiki project.WikiLaw 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC))—The previous is the user's first edit WikiLaw (talk • contribs) -- Avi 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Avi, members of the AO community have discovered this wiki page and are logging in to have a say. You're clearly trying to "pull rank" and devalue their contributions. This isn't "your" wiki page, it's everyone's wiki page. If you would like to find out more, I would recommend reading about Wikipedia itself. SkipSmith 21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, or it is another example of sockpuppetry. I have started the process to find out which it is. -- Avi 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This guy does come up with some good sockpuppet names. Probably not even an actuary, though, just an unemployed troublemaker, tsk tsk. -- TheActuary 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Avi, your strategy is obvious. You and your lapdog are going to accuse all newcomers who disagree with you of violating some wikipedia rules to frighten them away and keep the article just the way you like it. SkipSmith 09:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely uncalled for, Skip. Please remember WP:NPA. -- Avi 12:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) —Note this is the same user that has called me "petty," "vituperative," and "childish," among other things. SkipSmith 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another AO-ism I just thought of: "what a joke of a _____" (fill in the blank with whatever you're criticizing). SkipSmith 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I will continute to attempt to have a civil conversation about this article, even if everyone who might have shared my point of view has been blocked and even if I have to wade through a thicket of meat puppets to do it. I will check the fark page to see what they're doing with their fark-isms, and make a few inquiries. If it looks like the fark-sims are here to stay (and maybe if I find some other examples of -isms related to internet sites), I'll try to cobble together a cleaned-up list of AO-isms (and watch the meat puppets promptly delete it, probably). SkipSmith 18:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was shown that on wikipedia, fark is the exception, not the rule, and is not a velid precedant for any "isms," especially ones only used to somehow rekindle the memory of banned Rams-fans. The use of a term does not make it an "ism." Further, I have not seen a substantive response to the issues I raised above. -- Avi 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The fark.com cliches are still on the page. I've been doing some further investigating, and the Something_Awful_Forums article also has sections on notable members and the culture of the board. I'll do a more comprehensive survey of message board pages later. The Rams fan comment above indicates that Avi is carrying a personal grudge from the AO onto this board, whch appears to be clouding his judgement. Anyone else want to weigh in? SkipSmith 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith and Intimidation

The entire discussion around this article is sliding into a very bad place. User:Avraham has managed to get everyone (but me) who disagreed with him labeled a "sock puppet" and blocked. Shockingly, this even includes one of my work IP addresses where I clearly identified myself, making me wonder just what kind of investigation was actually conducted. In the meantime, my legitimate concerns that User:TheActuary is a sock or meat puppet were dismissed without investigation, and I was accused of making the accusation in bad faith, suggesting that wikipedia is run by a clubby bunch of insiders who selectively enforce the rules. I guess I'm not in the club ...

A warning to all: apparently any disagreement with Avi on this article will be labeled vandalism or be attributed to a sock puppet, and Avi has the power to punish you through the wikipedia powers that be.

My recommendation for anyone who would like to participate in wikipedia long term or avoid trouble at work is to avoid any edits or discussion on this article unless you completely agree with Avi, unless you want to risk being blockedk. SkipSmith 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Someone has been helping me figure out how to deal with the mistaken sock puppet case though official wiki channels, so there might be hope for a real discussion here after all. SkipSmith 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Skip, I thought of some new -isms for your listing, that is, if anyone other than Avi is allowed to contribute to his vanity piece about his project. Maybe you could add "snorkel" to the -isms. Something like that anyway. I guess the other guy's flip out pales in comparission to recent hapenings.Ravenslaw 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good one! That's a good example of an AO-specific -ism that springs from a funny story that gives some nice insight into the AO culture. Thanks, Ravenslaw. Just to warn you, Avi will most likely try to get you blocked as a sock puppet (see below). He's managed to get everyone who disagreed with him blocked but me. However, I'm starting to learn my way around wikipedia rules, and now that I'm "lawyered up" I think the other side of this argument might get a fair hearing after all. Hopefully you'll be able to stick around, and don't post under your IP address ! SkipSmith 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather curious that someone should just happen on to the article within seven minutes of forming the account Ravenslaw (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) . Of course, I'm sure this is not an example of solipsism, but merely one of serendipity :D. Welcome Ravenslaw, I'm sure SkipSmith and you have plenty in common and plenty to discuss. :) -- Avi 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what your fascination is with usernames and identities. Is a play about Romeo and Juliet any less appealing if the author's REAL name was something other than Francis Bacon? Does the rose smell less sweet if called an Abducanian Tulip? The proof is in the pudding, Avi, and truth can be uttered out of the mouths of babes or "trolls" or "sock puppets" if that is what you wish to label those with whom you disagree. I find your intolerance for diversity un-amusing. Wiki is supposed to give a neutral perspective, not a biased one. Your defense and authoring of this article is not neutral. You can throw about whatever label you want on those with whom you disagree. I suppose Howard Dean should write his bio here too, or write the article about the Democratic Party in 2006. Maybe the Israeli prime minister can write the Wiki article about Middle East current events. Maybe Osama bin Laden can write the article about Western Civilization. And if anyone other than the author tries to add a different perspective, then the author or his meat puppet can revert to their fundamental text that is to remain sacred from dissenting opinions. In the end, the dissenters should probably acquiesce to your changes. After all, this article is even less significant than the subject it is written about…less noisy and less furry than a tickle me Elmo, but still signifying nothing. ColeSlaw 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, you have a way with words :lol: Yes, a dazzling form can sometimes hide the flawed function, but solipsistic soliliquies notwithstanding, the core of the issue is that these uncommon instances of net-speak are not notable, and do not belong in the article. As for my “fascination” with userid's, I believe it stems from here: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry -- Avi 17:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Jimbo Wales has said: "There's no specific policy against [Sock Puppetry]"" Particular net speak may not be notable in and of itself, but if we work from the premise, as we have here, that a web site is itself notable, then the language spoken at that site and the history of that site might be of interest to a person who is researching or trying to understand that site. Everything mentioned in an article does not have to be notable. At least it would seem to me to be the case that things not notable on their own could still be mentioned within the context of another, presumably notable, topic. Is Casey Sheehan notable? He is a soldier who died. Doesn't seem particularly notable. But he might be referenced in an article about Cindy Sheehan who became a political figure and cause celeb in the anti-war political movement during a presidential campaign. ColdPorter 23:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Waterwheel editing other's comments?

Why is the user Waterwheel removing all comment about the intimidating faxes that someone sent to a poster's work IP address because he disagreed with their Wiki contributions?SteamBoat 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Skip, Waterwheel, and all of your collective ‘friends’

SkipSmith and his “posse” seems to be having a tiff with WaterWheel and his “posse”. What the two of you do on your spare time is your own business, but please keep wikipedia and this article out of it. For the benefit of the rest of us, I am will archive everything on this page, and the two? of you may continue your spat on your respective talk pages, blogs, fax machines, typewriters, or carrier pigeons as you so desire. Any further argumentation on this page will be viewed as vandalism.

Waterwheel, you should know, that regardless of your edits, the history is always available so deleting it is pointless.

SkipSmith, you should know that your point is made, and you should handle off-wiki issues off-wiki.

Thank you. -- Avi 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Skip, now you are handling this properly. However, regarding an AfD, you know quite well that the person you believe is Waterwheel/Anon (Glenn) is not the current webmaster, and I believe the link to his blog was removed, so the current article has nothing to do with him any longer. -- Avi 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How would the current article or his recent behaviour have nothing to do with him when the current article still promotes him as having had a role in its history and still links to his blog? Sleeping Parrott 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the link is still there, Avi. And he's still actively taking out of this discussion page some facts documenting his past actions. OutsideObserver 01:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you would have to ask him or Claude directly. I have no idea about financial interests in the site. -- Avi 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not the one who proposed an AfD --- that was suggested by someone else. I think an AfD might be a bit extreme, The user in question still monitors and edits this page. SkipSmith 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)