User talk:Straycat0 - Revision history

Shane: /* Question/Anwer */

2006-10-16T03:21:18Z

Question/Anwer

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:21, 16 October 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:Well, I don't think that anybody's leak should be taken as anybody's fact. At the same time, there are at times legitimate info that comes out but it can't be verified. To take into case in point, the episode 13 storyline as leaked by Gateworld. Though, there is a strong possibility that this information could be geniune, it is in fact unverified, just like many other unverified phony rumors about this & that floating about. There's no supporting evidence to tell the difference unless something comes from an official source. To determine if this is correct is a judgement call. I'm trying to find a way to present these judgement call situations to the non-wikipedian community in such a way that they can be the judge of it. The way I initially edited [[The Woman King]] at the time being called Episode 13 was the incorrect way. I see that. I just through the rumor stuff out on the page leaving to much room for saying that this is the actually story. Well...ok. So, I am attempting see if my recent edit is going to fly on account that I presented the officially verified information on the page, referenced to the fact that there is other unverified spoiler information, and provided a link. It's all in the wording I believe and I think that I have worded in such a way that battlestarwiki is not verifying the information, but only letting the reader know that such rumors are about and aiding in them decerning for themselves. It's not my intention to add credence to the value of the rumors GateWorld is presenting, I just want to make it available. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 16:31, 23 September 2006 (AST)		:Well, I don't think that anybody's leak should be taken as anybody's fact. At the same time, there are at times legitimate info that comes out but it can't be verified. To take into case in point, the episode 13 storyline as leaked by Gateworld. Though, there is a strong possibility that this information could be geniune, it is in fact unverified, just like many other unverified phony rumors about this & that floating about. There's no supporting evidence to tell the difference unless something comes from an official source. To determine if this is correct is a judgement call. I'm trying to find a way to present these judgement call situations to the non-wikipedian community in such a way that they can be the judge of it. The way I initially edited [[The Woman King]] at the time being called Episode 13 was the incorrect way. I see that. I just through the rumor stuff out on the page leaving to much room for saying that this is the actually story. Well...ok. So, I am attempting see if my recent edit is going to fly on account that I presented the officially verified information on the page, referenced to the fact that there is other unverified spoiler information, and provided a link. It's all in the wording I believe and I think that I have worded in such a way that battlestarwiki is not verifying the information, but only letting the reader know that such rumors are about and aiding in them decerning for themselves. It's not my intention to add credence to the value of the rumors GateWorld is presenting, I just want to make it available. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 16:31, 23 September 2006 (AST)

	== Question/~~Anwer~~ ==		== Question/Answer ==

	I reverted back to the previos version because answering before the episode airs violates the [[BW:SP\|Spoiler Policy]]. If you want to re-add it, make sure you add the {{tl\|spoiltext}} tag around your info. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 22:20, 15 October 2006 (CDT)		I reverted back to the previos version because answering before the episode airs violates the [[BW:SP\|Spoiler Policy]]. If you want to re-add it, make sure you add the {{tl\|spoiltext}} tag around your info. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 22:20, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Shane: Question/Anwer

2006-10-16T03:20:47Z

Question/Anwer

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:20, 16 October 2006
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Until they officially release something it's "In case your script or information about your script gets leaked, we will disavow any knowledge of it. This message will self-destruct in 15 seconds" --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:57, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		Until they officially release something it's "In case your script or information about your script gets leaked, we will disavow any knowledge of it. This message will self-destruct in 15 seconds" --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:57, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
	:Well, I don't think that anybody's leak should be taken as anybody's fact. At the same time, there are at times legitimate info that comes out but it can't be verified. To take into case in point, the episode 13 storyline as leaked by Gateworld. Though, there is a strong possibility that this information could be geniune, it is in fact unverified, just like many other unverified phony rumors about this & that floating about. There's no supporting evidence to tell the difference unless something comes from an official source. To determine if this is correct is a judgement call. I'm trying to find a way to present these judgement call situations to the non-wikipedian community in such a way that they can be the judge of it. The way I initially edited [[The Woman King]] at the time being called Episode 13 was the incorrect way. I see that. I just through the rumor stuff out on the page leaving to much room for saying that this is the actually story. Well...ok. So, I am attempting see if my recent edit is going to fly on account that I presented the officially verified information on the page, referenced to the fact that there is other unverified spoiler information, and provided a link. It's all in the wording I believe and I think that I have worded in such a way that battlestarwiki is not verifying the information, but only letting the reader know that such rumors are about and aiding in them decerning for themselves. It's not my intention to add credence to the value of the rumors GateWorld is presenting, I just want to make it available. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 16:31, 23 September 2006 (AST)		:Well, I don't think that anybody's leak should be taken as anybody's fact. At the same time, there are at times legitimate info that comes out but it can't be verified. To take into case in point, the episode 13 storyline as leaked by Gateworld. Though, there is a strong possibility that this information could be geniune, it is in fact unverified, just like many other unverified phony rumors about this & that floating about. There's no supporting evidence to tell the difference unless something comes from an official source. To determine if this is correct is a judgement call. I'm trying to find a way to present these judgement call situations to the non-wikipedian community in such a way that they can be the judge of it. The way I initially edited [[The Woman King]] at the time being called Episode 13 was the incorrect way. I see that. I just through the rumor stuff out on the page leaving to much room for saying that this is the actually story. Well...ok. So, I am attempting see if my recent edit is going to fly on account that I presented the officially verified information on the page, referenced to the fact that there is other unverified spoiler information, and provided a link. It's all in the wording I believe and I think that I have worded in such a way that battlestarwiki is not verifying the information, but only letting the reader know that such rumors are about and aiding in them decerning for themselves. It's not my intention to add credence to the value of the rumors GateWorld is presenting, I just want to make it available. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 16:31, 23 September 2006 (AST)

			== Question/Anwer ==

			I reverted back to the previos version because answering before the episode airs violates the [[BW:SP\|Spoiler Policy]]. If you want to re-add it, make sure you add the {{tl\|spoiltext}} tag around your info. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 22:20, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Straycat0: /* Episode 13 */

2006-09-23T23:08:52Z

Episode 13

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:08, 23 September 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:
	I too fell into this trap :(<br>		I too fell into this trap :(<br>
	Until they officially release something it's "In case your script or information about your script gets leaked, we will disavow any knowledge of it. This message will self-destruct in 15 seconds" --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:57, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		Until they officially release something it's "In case your script or information about your script gets leaked, we will disavow any knowledge of it. This message will self-destruct in 15 seconds" --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:57, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
			:Well, I don't think that anybody's leak should be taken as anybody's fact. At the same time, there are at times legitimate info that comes out but it can't be verified. To take into case in point, the episode 13 storyline as leaked by Gateworld. Though, there is a strong possibility that this information could be geniune, it is in fact unverified, just like many other unverified phony rumors about this & that floating about. There's no supporting evidence to tell the difference unless something comes from an official source. To determine if this is correct is a judgement call. I'm trying to find a way to present these judgement call situations to the non-wikipedian community in such a way that they can be the judge of it. The way I initially edited [[The Woman King]] at the time being called Episode 13 was the incorrect way. I see that. I just through the rumor stuff out on the page leaving to much room for saying that this is the actually story. Well...ok. So, I am attempting see if my recent edit is going to fly on account that I presented the officially verified information on the page, referenced to the fact that there is other unverified spoiler information, and provided a link. It's all in the wording I believe and I think that I have worded in such a way that battlestarwiki is not verifying the information, but only letting the reader know that such rumors are about and aiding in them decerning for themselves. It's not my intention to add credence to the value of the rumors GateWorld is presenting, I just want to make it available. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 16:31, 23 September 2006 (AST)

Serenity: /* Episode 13 */

2006-09-23T21:57:31Z

Episode 13

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 23 September 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:::I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)		:::I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)
	::::Like I always say, can't have any fun "behaving" ;) --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:16, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		::::Like I always say, can't have any fun "behaving" ;) --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:16, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

			I too fell into this trap :(<br>
			Until they officially release something it's "In case your script or information about your script gets leaked, we will disavow any knowledge of it. This message will self-destruct in 15 seconds" --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 16:57, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

Gougef: /* Episode 13 */ reply

2006-09-23T21:16:50Z

Episode 13: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 23 September 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
	:::I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)		:::I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)
			::::Like I always say, can't have any fun "behaving" ;) --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:16, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

Straycat0: /* Episode 13 */

2006-09-23T21:13:21Z

Episode 13

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 23 September 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)		:I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)
	::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
			:::I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)

Gougef: /* Episode 13 */ reply

2006-09-23T21:03:04Z

Episode 13: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 23 September 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Sorry to remove the Gateworld info, but Gateworld is not consider an "official" source. See [[BW:CJ]]. I apologize once again. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 15:42, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		Sorry to remove the Gateworld info, but Gateworld is not consider an "official" source. See [[BW:CJ]]. I apologize once again. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 15:42, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
	:I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)		:I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)
			::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

Straycat0: /* Episode 13 */

2006-09-23T20:46:32Z

Episode 13

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 23 September 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Episode 13==		==Episode 13==
	Sorry to remove the Gateworld info, but Gateworld is not consider an "official" source. See [[BW:CJ]]. I apologize once again. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 15:42, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		Sorry to remove the Gateworld info, but Gateworld is not consider an "official" source. See [[BW:CJ]]. I apologize once again. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 15:42, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
			:I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)

Gougef: Episode 13 edit. Sorry. Gateworld not official source

2006-09-23T20:42:14Z

Episode 13 edit. Sorry. Gateworld not official source

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:42, 23 September 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Welcome to the Wiki. Feel free to tell us about yourself on your user page. Also read the [[Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions]] project article, which details the policies we use in editing pages (this differs from many other wikis in consistent use of phrasing, abbreviations, format, and the like). --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:34, 22 January 2006 (EST)		Welcome to the Wiki. Feel free to tell us about yourself on your user page. Also read the [[Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions]] project article, which details the policies we use in editing pages (this differs from many other wikis in consistent use of phrasing, abbreviations, format, and the like). --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:34, 22 January 2006 (EST)

			==Episode 13==
			Sorry to remove the Gateworld info, but Gateworld is not consider an "official" source. See [[BW:CJ]]. I apologize once again. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 15:42, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

Spencerian: Welcoming.

2006-01-22T19:34:16Z

Welcoming.

New page

Welcome to the Wiki. Feel free to tell us about yourself on your user page. Also read the [[Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions]] project article, which details the policies we use in editing pages (this differs from many other wikis in consistent use of phrasing, abbreviations, format, and the like). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:34, 22 January 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 23 September 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
	:::I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)		:::I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)
			::::Like I always say, can't have any fun "behaving" ;) --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:16, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 23 September 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)		:I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)
	::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
			:::I do remember the discussion. I'm just pushing boundaries, testing limits. I have no problem with Gateworld not being considered an official source or for the need to not link fact pages with rumor and innuendo, but at the same time, I would like to find a possible way of reporting on such things as part of the fan-world and/or BSG-production history (sorry for not finding a good phrasing for this raw data). We do have a direct link to Gateworld.net on the main page for those who are interested in that, this is true, but what I am thinking is finding a way to take it one step further. Mind you, I do respect everything that's been discussed prior to this. I understand all the values and philosophy that went into it. I'm just looking for the wiggle room. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:35, 23 September 2006 (AST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 23 September 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Sorry to remove the Gateworld info, but Gateworld is not consider an "official" source. See [[BW:CJ]]. I apologize once again. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 15:42, 23 September 2006 (CDT)		Sorry to remove the Gateworld info, but Gateworld is not consider an "official" source. See [[BW:CJ]]. I apologize once again. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 15:42, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
	:I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)		:I understand the need for officiality. I am exploring was for this website to show "unconfirmed" and "unofficial" rumors and stuff as there does seem to be interest in this by some members. Maybe the way I laid that out was a bit blatant but I think there does need to be a way to connect that rumor to this episode page but not give it the veneer of officiality. --[[User:Straycat0\|Straycat0]] 14:09, 23 September 2006 (AST)
			::There was a bg discussion about this and the consensus was no unconfirmed rumors. I will see if I can find the discussion. It had more to do with avoidance of trying to decide who is a good source, who was not for unofficial rumors. Hence, no "rumors".--[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:03, 23 September 2006 (CDT)