yes aside thank you for trying to answer the block related concerns i will accept your stated goal to answer your questions to help clear up points of confusion as answer to my above and my italicized rephrasal i e the negotiation of our communicative relationship i only ask that if you should for any reason decide to assume bad faith with me please have the courtesy of quoting not linking a significant clause or sentence not title of a policy thank you i also accepted your answer to my as the degree of disruption that the article can bring etc reasons you oppose existence of an article on this fundraising method here are the next policy questions i need answered i'm not ready to focus on block policy yet rephrased wp d says ask yourself when a reader enters a given term in the wikipedia search box and pushes go what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result why do you believe most users who type in moneybomb want and expect the article to be on the topic of the attempt to influence the ranking of a given google page wp rubbish says arguments to avoid include surmountable problem the basis of the quality of the current article wp crystal adds it is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects which seems to apply too what specific policy indicates that your speculation about future disruption or your belief of present disruption is a valid deletion argument wp soap is not a deletion argument because an article can report objectively about such things thank you for sticking to these subjects