User talk:Jaysweet/Jack the Ripper

Arcayne edits and subsequent rollbacks

I rolled back DreamGuy's revert but undid some of Arcayne's edits... Some of them were clear improvements, e.g. "as" instead of "of" when talking about who has been identified as Jack the Ripper, so I kept those. Some were arguably POV, of which I reverted all but one (see below). The remainder were the Ripperologist/Ripper historian debate, which I think we are getting close to consensus on, but maybe not quite there yet...

I broke the concerns up into sections, and signed each section to avoid confusion. --Jaysweet 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hackery"

I see the point Arcayne is trying to make, but I think saying "conspiracy theories" is sufficient. The point is made to the reader that a lot of Ripper info should be taken with a very heavy grain of salt, but without being overly insulting and pov. I removed the hackery edit. --Jaysweet 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Very clear POV-pushing on Arcayne's part. There's absolutely no need for such inflammatory language. DreamGuy 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing? Please, DG, do make an attempt at good faith would you? After all, it was you who essentially considered Cormwell's book a few steps above toilet paper. that was what my addition there addressed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, "hackery" is definitely pov, and although DreamGuy has made strong criticisms of sources on the Talk pages, to his credit he has never added anything to an article that said a particular source was crap (and he appears to even have cited some sources he disagrees with, to give a complete picture). As usual, I do wish DG would reign in his tone a little bit sometimes, but let's try not to inflame things when we are finally so close to a compromise.

The bottom line is, we aren't putting "hackery" in the intro. As to who did what with what intentions, let's stay agnostic about that for now. --Jaysweet 17:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't really married to it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The above part of the debate is resolved. Result was: "Hackery" is too pov for intro

"Serial killer" vs. "individual"

What do people think about this? I am not sure I agree with Arcayne's point that since "serial killer" was not in common usage at the time, it should be avoided here... but "individuals" might be a little more precise and encyclopedic anyway. I think I like that better. Opinions? --Jaysweet 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Individuals" is not precise, as it could mean bakers or pianists or whatever. "Serial killer" is definitely specific and encyclopedic. When the term was created isn't an issue, as that's the overwhelmingly accepted term now, and readers are reading it now, not 120 years ago. DreamGuy 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Accepted by who? "Repperologists?" We don't even know if the dude (or gal) fit the definition of a serial killer, and not a spree or a mass murderer. As well, some of the theories - addressed in the body of the text speak to the possibility of multiple murderers, ergo, individual or individuals - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I must have missed something... I thought a "serial killer" was simply a person who killed more than one person over the course of more than one event (they "kill" "serially"). Since the murders in Whitechapel occurred over the course of several months, if even two of them (excluding the "double event") were committed by the same individual, that individual is by definition a "serial killer", right? I think?

Anyway, I'm on the fence on this one. I don't agree with Arcayne's reasoning for preferring "individual", but I see other reasons (e.g. it is more concise, it is not a loaded term, etc.) So it's a tough call... --Jaysweet 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A really good article on defining serials can be found here (I was actually surprised that it was actually the first choice in the search - the very one I actually already knew back from Abnormal Psych 320). As there are a lot of pieces of Jack's puzzle missing (childhood, motivation, crime signature, "trophies" taken from all the supposed victims, etc.), its inaccurate to include the term. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In at least one instance, it flowed well to replace "individual" with "killer," and since it was referring to the canonical five in that case, it's hard to dispute that word (after all, all five were indeed killed by someone...)

In the other instance, I remain torn. Also, I should point out there are like five other times when the article uses the phrase "serial killer," some clearly appropriate, some more questionable...

Incidentally, Wikipedia defines Serial killer as "someone who murders three or more people in three or more separate events over a period of time for largely psychological gratification." I don't like that "largely psychological gratification" at the end -- I mean, want percent of the killers motive has to be psychological gratification to qualify as a serial killer? 51%? heh... In any case, I think any time we are referring to a hypothetical Jack as being someone who killed three or more people in three separate events involving evisceration, it is fine to use "serial killer," as it is hard to see any motive for evisceration other than psychological gratification. I mean, they didn't have organ transplants in 1888, right? heh... --Jaysweet 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps I am not making my point adequately, and I apologize for that. To begin with, we cannot really use Wikipedia's (inadequate, imho) definition to supply our own. there are a great many types of multiple killers, from spree-, lust- (which actually is what the FBI considers the Ripper to be), and mass-killers. There are more killers that don't fit the bill of a serial killer, like someone who does it for pay or for political reasons. Since everything that has been posited about JtR is essentually specualtion, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the Ripper as a mass murderer, or simply killer. As the killings (5. 11 or however many) do not supply a lot of information about the killer (due to police ineptitude or a simple lack of the forensic techniques that were just starting to be developed at that time), we cannot encyclopedically define the Ripper as anything other than a killer (or killers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

I dunno about that article you linked to... it seems to be talking more about the profile of a serial killer rather than the definition, e.g. it mentions that the typical serial killer is a white male. (Incidentally, this has inspired me to write my own book about Ripperology in which the killer is a lesbian Eskimo)

That said, where "killer" is not redundant or overly vague, that does seem mildly preferable... --Jaysweet 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a fairly long article, but the differences betwixt serial, spree and mass were noted. Good luck on the book. Your Inuit lesbian will be in good company, alongside such folk as Sickert, Prince Albert Victor, a small gang of light-saber-wielding squirrels and a broom with a mean disposition.

And when killer would be redundant, we could use murderer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne claimed: "We don't even know if the dude (or gal) fit the definition of a serial killer, and not a spree or a mass murderer." Sure we do. Mass murderer is right out, because that'd be someone who did all his killings all at once. Think suicide bomber. Spree killer is also not right, as the defining part there is having a single extended spree of killings with no downtime between them. Think of the guys who kill their families and then go off and start shooting at a mall or school or whatever. Serial killer is an absolutely indisputable term for the Jack the Ripper murders, as there was a gap of more than a month between two of the killings, and even if that one weren't there the weeks between the others still would rule out a spree killer. DreamGuy 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, your definitions of spree and mass killers are incorrect, but they are layman mistakes. I've already pointed out the difference, and provided you a link so as to learn. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne -- maybe I am confused, because the link you sent does not contain the text "spree" or "mass". My impressions of the definitions of "serial killer" vs. "spree killer" vs. "mass murderer" generally conform to DreamGuy's definitions -- but I am basing my assumptions on a parsing of the literal meaning of the words. If there is a field where these terms are jargon, where the words do not mean what they literally mean, heh, you'll need a source that specifically mentions "spree killer" and "mass murderer" (as well as "serial killer").

Also, please be careful of characterizations like "layman mistakes." Nobody should be called a layman here unless they volunteer that status themselves (i.e., you can call me a layman, but nobody else ;D ). We're making some progress here, and the last thing we need is to start drifting over into incivility again (I will be saying something similar to DG about a comment he made below). --Jaysweet 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of laymen was not intended as a slight. by design, people in wikipedia are all laymen. the terms described are fairly complex and involved, and attempting to stuff them into an (imo) overly simplistic definition by comparison is a bad path to begin walking down. Since we are beginning to lose focus, allow me to bringus back: we cannot prove the Ripper was a serial. we cannot prove M.O. We cannot determine with any certainty the pathology oif the killer and so therefore, it is speculative to assume such. I say we present the facts and let the reader make up their own mind. My goal here is simply that. My agenda is for inclusiveness, not exclusivity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what those words mean. Go look them up. Jaysweet has, and he knows I am right.

There is no way that saying that the Ripper was a serial killer is at all speculative, despite your attempts to redefine words to mean something other than what they mean.

And your attempt to try to claim I am layman is just completely off base... not only was it clearly not civil (despite your rationalizations), but it is also not accurate. If there's one thing you should have picked up by now, it's that I know quite a bit about this topic. I patiently explain various aspects all the time here, but it gets old when you simply refuse to believe them or go do the research yourself and just insist you are right. You're basically holding the article hostage to your lack of knowledge on the topic by aggressively insisting that everything be proven to *your* satisfaction when it's becoming very clear that the only way you will be satisfied is if you get your way whether you are right or not. It's the exact opposite way of how encyclopedia articles are supposed to be put together, and completely opposed to the spirit of working together. DreamGuy (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"much debate" vs. "heated debate"

One could argue that Arcayne's edit here was pov, so if it gets rolled back again I won't revert... but I think at the same time, well, it is heated debate, as we have seen right here! :) So I'm inclined to keep this one. --Jaysweet 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not reverting it right now, but "much debate" is encyclopedic language, "frequent and heated" is over the top. I probably will remove it at some point unless some better wording that's not pushing Arcayne's bias against the field can be come up with. DreamGuy 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is more clear, do you think: "frequent debate" or "much debate"? Maybe "heated" is unnecessary... I can see the argument either way on this one. --Jaysweet 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be some fine point of grammar that makes "much" or "frequent" more proper in this context, I don't know. Either is fine. There's no need to go beyond that though. DreamGuy 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the second time in as many sections that you have questioned my neutrality, DreamGuy. I am asking you to stop with the subtle digs. It's uncivil. As for the edit, I submit that the various authors of books on the subject tend to dismiss other authors, and do it often. Considering the sheer volume of books on the subject, it's not unencyclopedic to note some heat. However, I concede that perhaps 'frequent' or - even better - 'continued debate' is more accurate and encyclopedic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you already demonstrated your lack of nuetrality by making attacks on Ripperologists and the field on the talk page of the main article. It's not "uncivil" to point out that your actions do not follow WP:NPOV. You need to stop fishing for accusations you can make against me, because all of your complaints have failed and people are seeing right through you. DreamGuy 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What about "frequent and continued"? I definitely like using the word "continued" because that makes it clear to the reader that the matter is not settled. Using both words gives a good flavor for the nature of the debate without pushing pov, but maybe it is unnecessarily verbose. So far, though, if I had to choose a single word, I like "continued" the best. --Jaysweet 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can see that as working well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It currently reads "frequent and continued". I am going to close this part of the discussion if I don't hear any objections by the end of today. --Jaysweet 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. The result was: replaced "heated" with "continued"

Other Arcayne edits

I thought the other rolled-back edits from Arcayne were pretty uncontroversial. Did I miss anything? --Jaysweet 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding "apparent" to "modus operandi" serves no purpose. Apparent implies controversy, and the things being discussed in that sentence are about the only things for which there can be no debate: necks were slashed, mutilations happened, etc. The reasons for that, which victims were by the same killer, what time some of them were killed, etc., are under debate, but this part isn't. It's just WP:WEASEL wording for no reason. DreamGuy 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading it again, I think I agree with you. The sentence begins with "Most experts," so it's already clear that the sentence is not trying to state an unequivocal fact, it's merely stating an overwhelming consensus. I'll subtract it. --Jaysweet 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No attempt at "weaseling" was intended. As a great deal of JtR's puzzle is missing, leaving only dead bodies and almost nothing else, any modus operandi is at best a reasoned guess. the use of apparent addresses this lack of solid information upon which to bas an actual m.o. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the term. From above we know you don't know what mass murderer means either. Are you disputing that these women had their necks slashed and that they were mutilated? That's fact, not speculation. DreamGuy 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, I quite understand the term. as well as a great many other things. Perhaps you are going to want to back off the uncivility now; I am sure you would prefer not to have it assumed that you are mentally challenged because you appear socially incapable of responding positively to requests to be polite, so perhaps you should make more of an effort to not assume incompetence and diminish the knowledge and contributions of others. Please be polite. This is the third time I've had to ask this of you, and there won't be a fourth time.

As with a great many other killings occurring in Whitechapel at the time, throat slashings and mutilation was not a brand new thing. So, if these are the only two criteria (throat-slashing and mutilation), then the Ripper was an exceptionally busy fellow, with a body count exceeding even the most fevered speculation of an author. Modus operandi consists of more than resulting trauma on crime victims - this is the difference between those murders than can be likely tied to the Ripper and those which were unrelated.

I respect that you might know a bit about Ripper history, but the criminology terms and criteria need some background knowledge to use and apply effectively. We don't know the modus operandi of the Ripper, because not even the experts can determine with any level of certainty that the victims attributed to him/her/whatever is a defined quantity.

Lastly, some victims appear to have been strangled prior to having their throats cut, accounting for the little blood at the scene. the crimes weren't identical, and we cannot use Macnaghton's list of five, as - according to most reports, the investigating officer Abberline himself disagreed with the list. Understand that I don't pose this as an argument against the canonical five, but instead as an argument to use the canonical five as proof of serial crime. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, be careful here. Your second sentence here ("From above we know...") is a borderline personal attack -- it implies that your disagreement with Arcayne over other terminology inherently calls into question his interpretation of this terminology. We are starting to make some forward progress here, so the last thing we want to do is start losing patience.

FWIW, I see Arcayne's point, but I still think "apparent" is somewhat redundant. True, it would not be Jack's MO if the five canonical killings were not all the word of Jack, but to qualify it in such a way is redundant given the context. --Jaysweet 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne wrote: Understand that I don't pose this as an argument against the canonical five, but instead as an argument to use the canonical five as proof of serial crime. This is the crux of the biscuit here... Out of context, a reference to "JtR's MO" would be problematic, because it would appear to "use the canonical five as proof of serial crime." However, in context, I think it is very clear that the sentence is saying that "most experts" are relying on circumstantial resemblance to serial crime (in this case, a similar MO) to support their definition of the canonical five.

At this point, I would like to maybe come up with a different way to phrase the information altogether. I see both arguments, and while on balance I think it is better to leave "apparent" out of the sentence, I think we are failing to get a consensus either way. Here is more or less what the sentence is trying to say, I think: "Most experts" see the similarities in MO of the canonical five as being very supportive of a single killer, and are skeptical to include any murders that do not much that MO. Can we find a way to paraphrase that?

On an unrelated note, what the hell does "crux the biscuit" even mean? My wife says it all the time, and now it appears I've picked it up! Argh! --Jaysweet 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Allowed" in intro

One thing I am unhappy about in the intro text is the use of the word "allowed". I think there is a very subtle pov here, in that it implies that Ripperologists are generally nutjobs who were just chomping at the bit to propose wacked-out theories about something, and the ambiguity of the Jack the Ripper story was just the opportunity they were looking for. (It seems some Ripperologists do fit that category, ha ha ha, but not all, and it's still pov) I am going to try to fix it up, see what y'all think. --Jaysweet 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version, "inspired", is even worse for the concerns you raise. It might work better to split that up into two thoughts to avoid implying a direct cause-effect conscious decision. DreamGuy 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, that's a good idea. I'll try that... --Jaysweet 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sems to work better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A few questions

• I seem to recall an illustration where police officers were standing off to the right and a suspicious character in brimmed hat walks around the corner to the left. I cannot seem to find it in Google. Was that a period illustration, or a later development? That image can be seen here.
• There was a Criminal Investigative Analysis (aka profiling) done by the FBI in 1988 about the Ripper. I don't see it here or in the locked article. Is there a reason it isn't being included? I think it would be brilliant to actually include an analysis that doesn't come from someone making a buck off the ripper killings. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To your first point, that illustration is from the October 13, 1888, issue of the Illustrated London News. I have an original copy. Those are notpolice men but part of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee -- sort of a Victorian neighborhood watch program.

To the second point, there have been a fair number of profiles done on the Ripper case, the FBI one (more Robert Ressler than the FBI,really, despite the publicity) just got the most hype. Dr. Robert Keppel, Dr. Kim Rossmo and Professor David Canter are just three other professional profilers who have tackled the case. The profiles do not agree with each other on many of their conclusions. Mentioning one without the others would be a POV problem. I personally never tackled it because it would be a great deal of work for little end benefit, in my mind. No publication that I am aware of has ever tried to go through and sort them all out for comparison purposes, so there may even be an OR problem to tackle it here.

And, as a general comment, this type of discussion belongs more on the main page talk page instead of here. DreamGuy 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So Arcayne has restored this here... heh, not to Wikilawyer too much, but technically since this is in my User talk space, I can make whatever edits I damn well please :p That said, why exactly did you want it here? I have been trying to keep this discussion focused on the compromises that will get the article unprotected... it seems to me that, while your suggestions here might improve the article in the long term, they are not necessary or beneficial to that narrow goal. Maybe I am missing something? --Jaysweet 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing it, Oh Great and Powerful Oz..I mean, Jaysweet. :P

The reason why I ask about the image is that, like the placeholder image in the main article the illustration in question is an interpretation. However, I am thinking that a lot of people may not realize that Merry's illustration is that of the back of the Ripper, and not a circus-type poster. I am thinking that this image might be better, as it conveys the feeling of the people who the Ripper was (shifty guy with straggly long hair, looking all sinister and whatnot), and also illustrates the efforts of the Vigilance Committee (two for one). I asked about it here, because I am guessing there would be opposition to replacing the old image with this one. Since both are in the public domain, there is little worry of fair use. that DG has both is excellent, as he can likely scan in a nifty copy.

As well, i addressed the FBI profiling, as it would seem to be an official source (FOIA, FBI seal and everything), making it a far more reliable source than say, a book on the Ripper. The Feebs who dothe profiling are experts. Because of this, I am wondering if the article should approach the subject with these profiles in mind. I know of two, have the link to one, and DG says there is another. Three ultra-reliable sources from preemininent experts inthe field of forensic psychology. I am not sure it gets better than that. If they contradict, so what? We structure the article and address these profiles, citing them separately, if need be. If DG has the links to the others, please post them here, and i'll do the heavy lifting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of these discussions should be on the main article talk page and not here, as they have nothing to do with the reason the article is locked and the proposal to come to a compromise to get it unlocked. Considering that Jaysweet even took the time to move it there and there is no reason to not have it there, putting it back here is counterproductive. There would have to be lots of discussion before either of these changes are attempted, because they would be controversial, and we have more important things to worry about right now. DreamGuy 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the article is locked not because of specific edits but because of a basic lack of cooperation within the editing process itself amongst the edits. As the proposal of a placeholder image substitution (and inclusion of the FBI analyses) is likely going to engender the same basic disagreement that caused the article to be locked in the first place, it seems prudent to discuss the matter where we are discussing the new draft, which is seeming to replace the main article upon unlocking. If you feel that this is an inaccurate assessment of the difficulties we would be encountering with these two issues, then there isn't a need to discuss the matter further, and I will replace the image now in the draft. I will of course discuss the FBI profilings individually, not in comparison (I didn't see any references comparing them either), which avoids OR issues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(discussion redirected back to Jack the Ripper Discussion section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Amateurs and Professionals

I've made an attempt to render the sentence more neutral. No one is getting any more credit than anyone else. Amateurs cover everyone from homeless crazy folk to webpage maintainers. Profesionals cover the gamut from former policement, FBI profilers to historians and foresic pathologists. Not really sure why this is an issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I;ve had to replace the edit yet again. If there are editors who take issue with the use of the neutral usage of amateurs and professional, please address your concerns here, where they can be discussed on the Discussion page, and not via the crude forum of edit summary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how for the life of me you think focusing on amateurs first makes the sentence "more neutral", especially when you have made it clear on Talk:Jack the Ripper that you think anyone who calls himself a Ripperologist should not be considered a reliable source. That's nothing more than a clear attempt to slant the article to express your bias.

That is an incorrect assessment, DreamGuy. I don't think that calling yourself a Ripperologist maeks you a reliable source. Being a professional forensic pathologist speaking on the facts is more reliable than someone who is not trained in that field. That's just common sense.

I also think you demanding "Please, ask for an RfC or leave it be" in your edit comment shows a complete lack of understanding about how things work here. You do not get to change the wording and then insist that your version of it has to be the one that stays unless everyone else runs through hoops to satisfy you. That's nothing but trying to game the system. If you want to make a change, then YOU get the consensus to do so, whether it takes an RFC or not.

I understand how things work fine. I think, however, it would be safer to say that you seem unaware of why you need to be more civil and make fewer personal attacks. Again, your mischaracterizations - as they repeatedly have been in the past - are incorrect. i am not expecting you to 'run<sic> through hoops'; Much as you have tried against common reason to elevate your previous edits as correct, I am exercising my right to consider my edit better. Fortunately, I have the virtue of being correct here. If you truly have a problem, fold it into the RfC, and we'll get some input on it. Or, you can just go and ask an admin for their opinion. the article is supposed to be neutral. the argument of 'I don't like it' won't really work when arguing about my edit. And please, don't bother trying to convince me that you are desirous of a consensus - you past and present actions clearly indicate that the only consensus that you don't revert is when it consists of your own edits.

But the facts of the matter is that we already have had an RFC on this issue (see Talk:Jack_the_Ripper#Voting_on_use_of_Ripperologist_term), and Jaysweet and I have both reverted your edits listing amateurs first... that means very clearly that you are the one who has to stop edit warring and accept that you can't have it your way unless you convince other people to follow your side. DreamGuy (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, you are simply wrong here. I realize that this tactic of bending the truth 'til it squeaks has worked for you in the past, but remember who you are dealing with. Since the ArbCom complaint, I know who you are now. I know what you are. If youa re going to expect to be dealt with squarely by me, start off by telling me the unvarnished truth, not your spin on it.

And while we are on the tpic, the next time you personally attack me, I will report you; there are enough diffs to do so at this time. This post serves as your last warning and notice. You will deal with me professionally and civilly, or I will take steps to help you take an enforced break from the rest of us (or allow us a break from you). Pardon the severity of this post. I am tired of dealing with you and your 'my way or highway' mentality. I have tried to help you, but the first step to helping people is knowing when the people being helped are incapable of getting out of their own way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(The substance of this matter is being redirected back to the main article discussion. If you wish to comment or contribute to this discussion, please do so here) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)