Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Famekeeper

This talk page is for comments about the RfC on Famekeeper that cannot be directly included in any section of the RfC itself.

History and follow-up
Pjacobi finds my action in creating the stub for discussion of the controversies rather strange. Perhaps it was a mistake in a period of Wikistress. My objective had been to give Famekeeper somewhere to put sourced arguments critical of the Church that could be linked by all of the articles. Maybe that was a mistake, but I was tired of trying to get him to say what sections of any article he disputed. Robert McClenon 14:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

McClenon Rfc against Good Faith of Famekeeper
The following is archived from User Talk:Robert McClenon. Robert McClenon 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

McC, I'm about to post this link in my Rfc, but I thought I'd give you a moments advance warning. As you will see, this is a replacement by my accuser Str1977 , of a post under discussion by me , topical to the article there( Ludwig Kaas ) and to the Centre Party Germany , of which this priest was  chairman and party leader. [] You might have arcane regulation that provides for this Str action, but I saw it then and see it now as irrefutable proof of bad faith. It is in fact blatant censorship, and re-inforced all my suspicions , that str was more than an interested  editor, but was under strict orders to deflect criticism and linkage thru WP to the  Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, it is simply censorship  by an individual editor , who should have his behavious scrutinised as I always said , at arbitration , prior to the  solution of his un-acceptible and provocative bad faith. You will see that my post was very short, and I would appreciate a full apology from yoy regarding your attacks on my good faith , my length and the ncessity for that length. I imagine ,in good faith, considering what you yourself say about irrefutable proof and bad faith , that this will be easy for you. then, withdraw your name from the Rfc  and , and everywhere necessary , undo the damage which your leaping to conclusions, and your behaviour , has caused. I can always say things in one word, actually , but I won't because throughout my  editing I have made the greatest effort to avoid  un-enforceable  single word epithets. I spread it out like jam, so does Str1977 , as in 'dispicible[sic] gross impiety'. repeat of link 1 =[]  Famekeeper 20:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, since you started the RfC on FK I want to draw your attention to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper&curid=2300712&diff=20140279&oldid=20023902

Is this proper usage of the RfC "rebuttal" space?

As for FK's accusations above (note that he accuses, not me), have a look at my answer to his allegedly "irrefutable proof" at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Famekeeper#Irrefutable_Proof

Thanks, Str1977 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert,

I think he's referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Yes:The_vatican.27s_Media_Conference_and__the_Wikipedia

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=20047180#Old_Media_-_New_Media

Goodnight

Str1977 00:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, it is like this: User:Jimbo Wales is his user page, while Jimmy Wales is a page on the founder of WP. But I also like your distinction paradox. Now, finally, goodnight Str1977 00:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper And The Question of The Law
The following is archived from User Talk:Robert McClenon. Robert McClenon 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert,

"Famekeeper had previously put together a timeline of events"

Yes, I don't know why but has replaced one timeline with another (at the RfC), though they seem to be the same contentwise. Yes, it's accurate on the whole, though unfortunately with some inappropriate language (Nazi police, Nazi trade) and sometimes takings things out of context (Dilectissima Nobis) without any explanations or qualifications (some Hitler Church quotes). I haven't perused it all (and I won't), but they also seems to be a bit to positive to Ernst Thälmann.


 * Accurate my ...! You through-out rejected it all before 8 April. No quid pro quo ...to Enabling Act.


 * Because there is no quid-pro-quo involving the Enabling Act and the Vatican. At least you have provided zero evidence.

Anyway, yes "It was only a timeline, and so it did not prove causation". But that's unfortunately FK's method. He gather some reports about events, quickly draws his conclusions wihout any checking of possible alternative analysis, and then comes out with what "history says" and "history is against you" and "the historians" (which ones? why these? Why not others?) and - and that's the real kernel of the problem - he claims he hasn't got an interpretation, that he only gives facts.

"Now his argument appears to rely on a meeting between Kaas and Hitler, followed by a meeting between Kaas and Pius XI."


 * It always did, and it was always the issue and to this day you dis-allow it from your edits.


 * Let's have it like this: you do your edits and I do my edits. Str1977 21:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on that meeting. I never disputed such meetings, in fact I even expanded some of the things on "Centre Party", mainly the second half of 1932. It's his interpretation (which he calls facts) I have a problem with.

"However, at this point, all that he appers to be doing is taunting me."

Yes, he taunts at a lot.

Str1977 12:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You both deserve what you get - my awareness.


 * Stuff an d nonsense from both of you guys . I changed the timeline link because while this argument had been going on so long, the humanit as organisation has changed the way it linked to the information.


 * Listen you guys are a real right dissuasion from the WP . Str is an outright denier. From the start til the end he has denied that Kaas had any negotiations with Adolf Hitler about the concordat bfore P apen was officially  brought in . That is pure nonsense, but it enables him to persist in defensive  for the vatican . His  contributions to the Reichskonkordat , which I did not compose , are clearly aimed at  weakening the historians  linkage of the  Enabling Act with the Concordat . As always there is no inclusion of the facts submitted , originally by Humanitas, and now used through MegaMemex  . At no time has Str allowed entry  to the A pril 2 private Hitler meeting, nor that he is  reported as rushing back from Rome to have this audience with Hitler . I have consistently noted this, consistently quoted for months the  timeline references to Lewy  . All  that follows is abuse of my interpretation.  Hence my indignance and hence the need for my lengthy  appraisals and rebuttals . As I say in the  Rfc, it comes back to this one point. Why ? because the church needs  to be relieved of this scandalous association . If Str were not acting as agent, but acting as a normal editor, he would have accepted the facts rather than making of this a supposedly personal issue . All historians note a connection between Hitler's reference  to the church  on 23 march , the Fulda conference etc  and the subsequent  Concordat .Str wishes it different - why ? I have not misinterpreted K v Klemperer as the quote reveals every time.  I never claimed to have read Lewy , simply the reports for dates .  Mowrer I misinterpreted. Shirer. WBennett ., Toland . I find this offensive  because it is dishonest- the history of our battle proves  everything - it is desperate vatican rear -guard damage limitation. Desist from touching these relevant pages, as I have had to do . I told you McC that it is that which is left out which is most pernicious , more than the massage .  You are wonderful Str , they should give you a medal .Famekeeper 19:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To cut a long story short, FK, the timeline does not provide what your claim in the dispute is. It gives event after event after event. It gives the Kaas-Hitler meeting, an inclusion I never opposed, if you want to, you can include it - why don't you include it? Do you oppose yourself? I also included myself that he returned to Germany, while ... - no, I wanted to respond in short manner.


 * No more cutting allowed. Everything is evidence now. You accuse, and I refuse . I leave your biased editing as is, since  your reverting is  spectacular. You try and paint that cuddly Kaas went to Rome fro Eupen-malmedy  and that by chance he met Papen. it would be interesting to know exactly where they met in Munich , how long they met in Munich and why they met in Munich . A far cry though from Eupen-Malmedy , which is more than a priest-bashed issue, anyway.


 * Now you are confused: Kaas' first trip was because of Eupen-Malmedy, not via Eupen-Malmedy. Papen joined him on the second trip.


 * You don't get it Str, we have gone beyond reasonable editing issues here- this is my reputation and your several accusations. I  accuse you of purposeful dishonesty , same as you accuse me . I may be long-winded ,that's another matter . That is my good faith being an optimist.


 * Again, uncivility.


 * You misinterpret Klemperer to mean that Kaas ghostwrited Hitler's speech (and I'm referring to this quote, not any other from the same book) - which is nonsense.


 * I partcularly resent this accusation . "had a hand in " means that agrement of some  input as to what Hitler would say was negotiated by Kaas. This is the same as having written a part  .You actually  continue to exclude such history, despite the quoted source . It is central to the historical accusation , is why you fight this. This is  bad faith , but you appear to be wriggling  now. I 'm not going to let this end with you wriggling.


 * Kaas propably said what he was worried about. Hitler was no fool. He noticed and included it in his speech and in doing so fed to Kaas what he wanted to hear. But that's not ghostwriting.

You overinterpret Mowrer if you deduce from the little he brings your conspiracy theory.


 * You would eradicate him entirely, and I quoted him in good faith all along .. I reject this accusation most forcefully.


 * No, it took me some time to check the book

Toland (I guess this is John K's book) you misinterpreted to confirm your thesis.


 * John Toland Adolf Hitler, quoted now c 2 times  or more.


 * Sorry, you post so much, I can't remember all. Same goes for the next line.

I have no clue what WBennet said.


 * You do because he was quoted at you . This is not my thesis, this is history's thesis /


 * History is not in the business of having theses. She is not even a person, she's reconstructed by human beings. It is your thesis or your literature's thesis (though haven't provided documentation for that)

If you haven't read Lewy, you shouldn't have claimed him as a source. I will not hold you to it, if you stop claiming him.


 * They claimed him on the timeline, in good faith I believe their factual presentation . You had the book , you knew the origin of my claims(if you read the post relevant) I never claimed other-wise, but you spend all your vision re-pairing the hole in the ship  . You have abused my good faith constantly  over this timeline. Do you say you do not agree with their reading as to dates? Why have you never accepted or checked, and still thereforrexclude it from Kaas ? I dealt with this under Pius XII . You are either without memory or dishonest.


 * As far as I can see, the dates are correct. Sometimes they are a bit odd in regard to context, inclusion and exclusion of things (From the timeline I can see how you were misled about Dilectissima Nobis, if the timeline was your only source for this.)

I corrected the Reichskonkordat article because it contained wrong information (which of course you claim to be right). The text was mainly translated from the German WP and the kernel of the German article was mainly copied from the atheist activist organisation IBKA. No wonder it had some flaws (and still has, in a way, in the claim that the "concordat undermined the separation of church and state as instituted in the Weimar constitution and upheld by today's Basic Law. It is in line with what both constitutions state - note the "separation" phrase is included neither in the German nor the US constitution. That the atheists want to a clear separation is obvious, but they are not the authority on the constitution.


 * You wrongly removed their link too . Your church were in it for themselves, prservation of the church above  human beings. not preservation of german catholicvs, preservation of the institution.  I repeat my legal threat to bring a canonical case thru some christian, like you.


 * Your canonical case is ... beyond description. No way to deal with it.

Also, neither I nor Robert (I think) assumed some sinister motives behind the timeline change. I myself have stated that they are the same - though I liked the previous "outfit" better. The new one has so much turning over from page to page.

Str1977 19:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Both quick to suggest it might help to hang me.
 * - POST BY FAMEKEEPER WHO DOES NOT CARE TO SIGN HIS POSTS LATELY.


 * I'm speechless except for SIGN YOUR POSTS, MAN !!!!! (see I can produce stupid links too, though not as long ones as you can.
 * Str1977 21:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Robert, for shouting at your talk page. Str1977 21:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no reason to continue trying to source history if you are forever going to decide what it is . Sources are sources. You produced some and I not only accepted them but used them-against your arguments. You really are bordering on the facile today though- I don't want to argue every point of what you did when, bit I can . The simple point is that you  would not accept either the dates or the sources, sio it is a bit late to now say you did. The proof is in the Kaas article, which is shorn of any such dates and sourced involvement. if I was the church , I'd  be dissatisfied with your blatancy , yopur lack of concentration , your inconsistancy , your tendency to wriggle into false agreement. Perhaps I'm wrong and this is a purely one man crusade and it is apure co-incidence , your arrival at all this . Don't try now and wriggle  into saying my canonical sourcing was either wrong , or not relevant . it is entirely appropriate to the case. the two Popes need to be  taken out from consecration and the scandal needs to be repaired, by the present Pope Benedict XVI . I  suggest , having drawn forth the exactitude of church law, that you yourself  organise the petition, your local priest would be able to forward this on, asking for a resolution of the scandal:by which I mean the declaration  of their automatic excommunication under Latae Sententiae forthwith. Then they can dig them up , and sing whatever dirge appropriate to those who defy the truth of the christian law.


 * I am glad that you suddenly seem to accept everything that you have striven so hard hitherto to deny and see as my personal interpretation. I don't even care about an apology, so long as you will take the absolutely necesary canonical case which , if you like , I'll repeat where you yourself agreed that if it were true, would correctly in this way deal with the  three  transgressors.  Will you behave as the christian you profess to be and demand the return of goodness to this institution of Jesus Christ ? You Str1977 said that if it were true, it were indeed  serious, as in the canonical law we  both related and dealt with.  You cannot have it both ways logicalyy . Now that you finally HAVE TO accept the sources , which is to say the  descriptions of  motivated facts  and connections and  commentators assumptions(not mine), the very  import of  all these sources. Forget the Wpedia- this is  absolutely cardinal history . Reconciliation can only come from truth . You begin to have to accept this   and yet you wish to wriggle by innuendo out of the  conclusions.


 * This is the end Str1977, because once you accept the sources , than you know that in terms of  the canonicals  there is an automatic  imposition of sentence (sententiae latae , McC,) . The digging up is also automatic , they HAVE to be removed . This is the  LAW of the vatican , not mine.


 * Fight more or agree, but at the risk that the more you fight , the worse it will be to have to climbdown . Now I AM finished answering here today .Famekeeper 23:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Faith of Robert McClenon
Why exactly did you ask me to paraphrase an answer defining the Papal excommunicants Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII within grave sin and mortal sin and then qualify  that  with especially hard further concepts of divided something? You knew I had dealt with the fairly logical canonicals, which spoke for themselves. Just a niggling question. How did you know what to ask for ?Famekeeper 22:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Innuendo of User McClenon
You wouldnt know whether there has or has not been any proof of moral complicity  because you  have not read the relevant discourse. If you had you wouldn't ask. I find your attitude one of biased innuendo. You say I cannot understand NPOV but you spend your whole time in this  defending biased  editing. I have not been removing relevant scholars all the way thru. Listen ...you say I am not capable of doing something-only the most difficult thing history can require, then you order me to do it. I hardly think you have ever displayed good faith towards me, and your  back-tracking now is visible. I should like an apology, and I shall consider whether I shall use the WP as organ or not. I think you require this concision because you  wish to avail of the case for defensive purposes. I will wait until this is demanded by some more neutral observers, so why don't you get up a vote : should FK be forced to summarize his own sourced argumentation under insult by McClenon and Str1977, or after an apology  for your inuendo of today ? Or before or after a withdrawal of the unjust Rfc against Famekeeper?

As fas as I can see you are trying either to obtain advance info of the real canonical case- for vatican defensive purpose, or else, you are now blustering to cover your inconsistancy with your Rfc accusations. From it being me 'pushing my POV', it's now FK is a silly man who can't distinguish between POV and NPOV anyway , can't write  ,yet actually now you see him justified and even support  the supposed POV  but yet  he must be asked to summarize that which he has spent months of writing trying in good faith to justify. For whom, you ? I don't see that you are neutral at all, McC. I think it may be best to await the arbitrators, I can get my 500 words together at home, so to say. And you ,vaticanitos, can sweat. PS you will find one article's history of massage/censorship at Pope Pius XII, also beside your anti-FK  innuendo at Ludwig Kaas talk .Famekeeper 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Famekeeper 17:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm getting dead serious, guys. McC- Str is disrupting my accounts here I ask for a signal he will not impede me , he refuses . My signature is note of this . I would like the civilty of active upload  there where I am preparing my POV report on Ludwig Kaas  . Ialso  include the point I  should have made to you in the above . Famekeeper 21:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

One might understand why FK is mad at me, since I oppose his conspiracy theory POV edits and his soap boxing, but why he has to beat up on Robert is beyond me. FK claims that my behaviour does not warrant "good faith", but Robert did nothing even remotely reproachable. When he first arrived he even leaned a bit to FK's point (or what he took for it). IMHO this indicates where (or with whom) the problem with "good faith" - "bad faith" lies. Str1977 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all, this is Str ad hominem . McC attacked me , very many times, went to law in fact to show me up . I ask a question , why no answer ?  I don't take your or his attacks to be valid, and I intend to prove it . He does not have to insult my IQ . I have not insulted his , or yours . I do threaten you with arbitration , user arbitration . Famekeeper 22:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Famekeeper Blocked
Arbitrators, this cannot go on. I cannot be blocked from attempting to resolve the issue  and insulted  for not working towards an outside understanding. I consider myself blocked by Str1977  as of this minute at discussion, Ludwig Kaas. I end now, with no way to complete the task concerning my accusations. I protest this minute this block .Famekeeper 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See my reply on Talk:Ludwig Kaas Str1977 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Str1977/Famekeeper
McClenon, I have prepared what you asked for , the 500 word Arbitration Summary. I will not post it to you here but  you can call for arbitration on my behalf. I thankyou in advance (though I still reject your innuendo ). 500 words are a complete round -up(including briefest summary of the  Roman Catholic Christian   Church internal Law-breaking ). Famekeeper 08:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

As the substance of the dispute is the historical accusation against the Holy See, I intend to  write the  Arbitration Summary upon the discussion page of Pope Benedict XVI as representing the accused. I will copy it to my own user page  and leave your space here entirely free.

I am asking Wyss to conduct arbitration for me, though I have no idea if he  will do so (given the  work necessary). She/he  may very well wish to stay clear, and I shall bear no grudge-in fact I would prefer him to refuse as I believe him to be a user better employed in  editing than in  this dispute (except that this dispute is so historically  important and requires his reason ). I do so in good faith, because without even particularly  agreeing with me , he seems to exhibit a reasoned observance of the  historical issues , and , importantly ,has been in no way involved ( as far as my memory serves me ) in ever posting on any of the many  different  articles / discussions. Our only point of contact has been very recently on the Weimar Republic  discussion page, and  the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. That is now it for me on your pages McC, though I supect I may yet have to hear from you ,upon mine. Famekeeper 13:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

August 10 2005
I have to say that reversion of what I source so clearly three times in 2 days just leaves me completely baffled as to how this WP works. I refer to this action as being being against wikipedianess .I'm trying to be civil for a year now, and for 3/4year I am battling one article - Pope Pius XII. What have you got to do -die? Famekeeper 00:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

JWales Final Responsibility re:Auschwitz Testimony Against Pope Pius XII etc
Pasted from JW's message board:

I'm sorry Jimbo, but I see the responsibility  to settle intractable disputes rests with you. I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP, so I ask you to take responsibility. No one else can take this your place. I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be  taken as an  issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show, that an Auschwitz survivor be  called POV (  rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2). You will see that the difference between  the two articles at this minute  is simple : one (PPII) is the  'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).

Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it. Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements  are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged. Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this  responsibility  for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ. I will consider myself in-active until you  please let me know that I am  required. As various users may find this disappearance odd, I post this letter to you for them to see  elsewhere. Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

McClenon 's reason for the Rfc
This was interjected on the Pope BXVI talk page and is pretty strange. Perhaps when the guy finally understands it's their law, not mine, he might get wise. So far, not being prepared to wade through the relevant "tosh" I write , he didnt understand. Apparently there's no question of any trial, so that is not relevant.


 * I only posted an RfC against Famekeeper after he had repeatedly made the bizarre statement that canon law demand that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII be exhumed so that they could stand trial. He has yet to cite a section that refers to a moral requirement to insult the dead in this fashion.  Robert McClenon 05:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I did, some months ago , McC is a bit blind .Go to Pius XII talk and see 'Canon law' section , and if you want the full treatment go to BXVI talk where I put the full treatment. It's law stuff, and you need to have spectacles on or something. Famekeeper

No, Famekeeper did not cite section that required this. He only provided some faulty reasoning and also operated on the basis of "the accused is presumed guilty". From one of them 22:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem
Users who act in ad hominem act in ad hominem,  and  that's that. I am cited as a liar because some people cannot see a reference to canonical law where it says three inches(7 cm) above "canonical law". this is tedious, and above you Str. Please desist from ad hominem ,- it does not deflect people from the serious moral consequences still flowing from papal collaboration with anti-communist Nazism. Sorry .Famekeeper 23:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see where I (or Robert) argued "ad hominem", despite your personal attacks. Str1977 23:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Famekeeper and User:Str1977
This user does not run into problems as he is very kindly and clever to all and sundry. I alone certify that this User is a malign and intellectual negative influence on all the pages, to my experience, that he edits. I have caught this user from hos very start trying, and without me, succeeding , in emasculation of true history downwards to sanitised history .This user leaves no room for mental stability to my good faith and his intractability has filled the WIKIPEDIA with endless pleas for intellectual honesty for nigh on a year. This cannot go on , and whilst I actually like this editor, he knows very well that he is stifling me in complete bad faith. Famekeeper 10:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Examples of good edits
Could an example or examples of Famekeeper's recent edits to a main namespace article be linked to here? One that was factual, verifiable (or with a citation), well-written, and neutrally worded. In short, something that fits into the Wikipedia and not something that is more appropriate to a blog or discussion board. I have to admit that from looking at his recent User Contributions, I was unable to find one. patsw 02:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for trying to be positive. I have never found that any of his edits were neutral or that they added any content except his anger.  I hope that someone else can find a useful edit that he has made.  Robert McClenon 02:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Stuff from my talk page
Here is some stuff that Famekeeper has posted to my talk page. There's plenty more where this came from if you're interested in some perplexing reading, though this is perhaps the most perplexing of the bunch. I offer this not in order to complain nor to make any particular point with respect to the dispute at hand, but rather as background evidence in case someone new to the case is trying to figure out which side of the argument represents the tinfoil hat brigade.--Jimbo Wales 02:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper Shortest Possible History Summary ,to bring Jimbo up to date

Hi, I was sucked back in for a month, but now my disgust is relieving me ,Jimbo ,of strength to confront more strange behaviour in the usual articles, to do with the papal collaboration  with Hitlerism  during Weimar Germany. So I have by now potted the  facts down to a few lines by way of truth-full  micro-explanation:


 * Illegal the assembly that passed the Enabling Act for Adolf Hitler (constitutional protection of deputies transgressed), Illegal the Government of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party contravention of section 2 of Enabling Act .Illegal the Government of Nazi Germany from 28 Febuary 1933 deputy detentions ( as found by the  Nuremburg Trials, Illegal the Roman Catholic reichskonkordat per the versailles treaty , by internal catholic law Illegal the popes Pius XI and XII subjects excommunicated at offence Illegal present continuance by present German Government   of vatican treaty .Guilty Contumacy  charge against Holy See of 1933    proved by the existence  of Secret Annexe : 'RESULT : WWII , '''HOLOCAUST Ends

Use it all, as it is digimmortal  ! Famekeeper 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)