Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:30, 24 December 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding Changes to Dr. P.S. Timiras Wiki Pages

Hello,

Please tell me why the additions to the Dr. P.S. Timiras Wiki Page are being removed, when they are fully valid and there are very good references such a peer reviewed journals and University web sites? I list the peer reviewed publications that support the information that the use CRUSIO continues to remove is shown below. I await your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondiveres (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First thing's first. I've restored the edit (with one modification). The edits in question violated Manual of Style guidelines regarding bolding the first instance of the article's subject. For those of us that sift through thousands of edits a day, that's a little bit of a red flag. I've made the change so that the article's subject is bolded while the information you added is also included. Next up, it's very helpful to provide a link to the article in question when you post on someone's talk page. You can post a link to a wikipedia article by simply encasing the article's title in double brackets. For example, ] links to this. The edits you mentioned were made about 250 edits ago for me. Didn't recall them off the top of my head. Hope this clears everything up. Feel free to post here if you have further questions.--Gnowor_C 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The name of the system that was developed in Dr. Timiras lab is called the Automated Imaging Microscope System and not the automated tissue image analysis system, that the user CRUSIO continues to call it. Please refer to the PUBMED publication at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990721?dopt=AbstractPlus to verify the name in the 4th sentence of the Abstract. Please verify the information related to CREA at the CREA web site http://crea.berkeley.edu/paul_segall_profile.shtml and http://crea.berkeley.edu/crea.shtml. I would be very happy to discuss these references with you and information with you.

As I mentioned, I tried to fix the page. Can you check to see if it was just fixed? The page says AIMS right now.--Gnowor_C 01:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The page looks good. Thank you. BV

P.S. How do I sign my name with a date time stamp as is required, after I make an addition? Is there a command to do this?

To sign your username and date/time, simple type ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Thanks for your contributions!--Gnowor_C 01:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. BV Bondiveres (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Gnowor, I'm going to revert your last edit to the Timiras article. The reasons for this are the following: 1/ you (inadvertently, I am sure) removed the persondata that I had added. 2/ The article is about Timiras, not Garan. The article on Steven A. Garan was deleted after an AfD and the article on the Automated Imaging Microscope System was redirected to automated tissue image analysis after another AfD. The anonymous IP (who got blocked yesterday for repeated vandalism) and Bondiveres (a successor account for User:Sgaran that has been blocked for socking and vandalism in relation to this case before) are using the Timiras article as a backdoor to restore that self-promoting content. Hope this explains. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries on the revert, Crusio. I didn't know of this background. I appreciate you taking the time to bring me up to speed. Have a great day!--Gnowor_C 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnowor

Wim Crusio has no regard for the facts that were quite clearly presented. Wim Crusio fails to address the facts and introduces incorrect information. Wim Crusio also removed the reference to Paul Segall the co-founder of CREA. As I mentioned before all the changes that Crusio removed are well referenced and are relevant. Wim Crusio's actions all started when he failed to redirect the wiki entry Phenomics to Phenotype in April 27, 2010, please look at the edit log for Phenomics to verify the dates and actions. After Wim Crusio lost the "battle" to redirect Phenomics to Phenotype, he took a sudden interest in deleting/redirecting/removing content from the following entries: Automated Imaging Microscope System, Paola_S._Timiras, Aging Research Centre. Please do not allow him to suppress information. I will not edit the Timiras page until I hear from you.

Best Regard. Bondiveres (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking response Bondiveres (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in BV. Apparently I had missed the above note from you and Crusio when I checked my messages this morning. I'm responding from my phone right now, so I can't really review two Afd's in depth. I'll look into this further when I get home, but based on the fact that there are already two closed Afds, it looks like concensus has held against you BV. That being said, I will review the Afds and also get you some information on how you could create the desired artciles in your user space so you can perhaps get the Afd overturned, if the article's subjects are notable. Don't give up hope. Your contributions are appreciated.--Gnowor_C 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks again for your reply. I am not too concerned about the articles that CRUSIO deleted. It appears to be rather subjective if they appear or do not appear. I would like to focus your attention on the corrections and additions to the Paola S. Timiras, that CRUSIO removed, specifically the addition of the entry for Paul Segall and the correction to the name of the imaging system that was developed and used in the Timiras lab. Please look at the supporting information and let me know if it is lacking in anyway and if so, what else can be added to allow this information to be on the Timiras site.

P.S. If you would like to look into the items that CRUSIO deleted please do so, they are listed above.

Cheers. Bondiveres (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My final thoughts regarding... well, many things

Okay. I think I'm as close to up to speed as any other law student can be at this point. (Especially one who took Astronomy for his physical science requirement in undergrad).

BV - I want to make it clear that I believe that you think you're doing the right thing. You think that the people that you're trying to add to Paola S. Timiras deserve credit for their work. I entirely agree. I'm just not certain that Misplaced Pages is the right place for it. As it seems that what (if anything) is notable is the work (and through that, the people are notable). Please note, I use notable in the technical sense that it's used on Misplaced Pages. Personally, outside of the web that is Misplaced Pages, I think everyone reading this discussion is more notable than this. It does appear though that you're trying to get around the system the community has built in order to get credit to the people in question. Additionally, by creating these articles, you may be defying standard the community has built regarding conflicts of interest.

If you wish to proceed, I think the best place to do so would be within your user space. You can learn how to create the article here. (Point 6 talks about making the page in your user space. In order for that article to be moved to the encyclopedia, it will need to meet notability standards, as well as cite reliable sources. I'd guess that the best article to create would be one regarding AIMS, as that may be the most notable project. Regardless, you'll need to find secondary material reviewing AIMS, or commenting on the person that you're creating an article on. If you'd like help creating an article in your user space, I'm happy to assist.

Crusio - First off, let me thank you again for bringing me up to speed on this issue. When I made the initial edits, it was something I gave about half a second of thought to, as I do most of my edits which are done only to fight vandals on Huggle. I didn't have the whole picture, and I appreciate you bringing the history to my attention. Also, thank you for the courteous note when you reverted my edit. It's greatly appreciated.

Now I'm going to do a bit of speculating and it's probably entirely off base. It seems that you and BV have quite a bit of history, and I'm not sure if all of it is on Misplaced Pages. Regardless, I think that BV may perceive you as having a conflict of interest. Based on your actions, I don't believe that one exists, but I can see how the appearance might be there. As such, if it would be helpful, feel free to come to me and ask for a second opinion on BV's edits, if you believe they're out of hand. I found all of your arguments in both AfDs and in our discussions quite convincing. I intend offer only to apply to edits of subject matter other than subjects already covered. I think consensus has been established on BV's edits to Paola S. Timiras as well as articles on that subject matter. Reverting any edits by any user (BV or someone else) would simply be in line with consensus.

I don't think coming to me would be considered meat-puppetry. You can cite this page for confirmation of that. I hope this doesn't seem too forward, as I realize you're much more experienced than I. You're welcome to do whatever you want, but given the accusations by BV against you, I wanted to offer my assistance to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I hope you see the good faith with which I extend this offer.

Regarding edits to articles - The information that you've added BV all centers around a couple of scientists and AIMS. If you continue to try to add this information to existing articles without establishing it's notability or verifiability, I suspect you'll meet continued resistance. If you try to make the page in your user space, I think you'll have more success. If you make other contributions to wikipedia that meet community standards, I think you'll start to find that the community can be rather supportive. I've tried to be supportive since my involvement in this issue which, again, started with a half-second's thought on one article. If Crusio's willing, I also think getting his feedback on your article in progress in your user space would be quite valuable as he's much more knowledgeable about the subject matter than I. Also, once you establish the notability of AIMS by an article moved from your userspace to the main encyclopedia, editing Paola S. Timiras to link to that new article would most likely be entirely appropriate.

I'm sure you're disappointed with my view on the situation, BV, but I hope it doesn't discourage you. Misplaced Pages's best article's weren't made in a day. Put in a little time on an article, and just ask the community for help. Thanks for your time, and I'm always here to assist.--Gnowor_C 23:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnowor,

Thank you for the considerable effort in your above response. I will ask you for only one last thing regarding information being correct or incorrect and not its notability or verifiability. The name of the system that was developed and used in her lab is listed incorrectly. The correct name is in the 4th sentence of the paper at the NIH library http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990721 and the linux journal paper at http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3459. The issue is not weather this information has notability or verifiability, the issue is that incorrect information has been posted. CRUSIO will not allow the correct name to be used. How can he be allowed to force incorrect information to the posted? The addition of Paul Segall as co-founder of CREA is up for debate as to it's notability as I am sure most things in Wiki could be contested. But I ask you to share your views on the correction of incorrect information and please make reference to the NIH paper and Linux Journal paper for background. Please understand this is not a question of notability or verifiability, it is a question of information being correct or incorrect. Please note I will not take up any more of your time, I just seek one last piece of guidance on this matter.

All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As the article in question is not about either AIMS or Paul Segall, I'm not certain that we can add that information. I'm going to give it one attempt and see what Cruzio thinks. Give me just a few minutes. Thanks again for your patience.--Gnowor_C 03:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Crusio thinks that ATIS is a general category that AIMS fits into. By referring to it as a ATIS system, Crusio didn't believe it was incorrect information, but just referring to the type of system it was instead of the system specifically. I've added AIMS after the generic reference, and have referenced the NIMH doc. Again, as this article isn't about either AIMS or Paul Segall, it's debatable how much information someone looking up P.S. Timeas needs on either. You're right that Misplaced Pages isn't here to propagate false information, but sometimes a level of generality can be helpful. Especially for those of us that wouldn't know a brain cell from a stem cell. Hope this clears things up. Thanks again for your understanding.

P.S. Perhaps Paul Segall is best added to the list of people here - (Oops, that's the wrong CREA)?--Gnowor_C 03:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnowor,

I like your solution to the issue at hand. I hope your solution is respected by all. I am glad to have heard from you on this matter. Happy Holidays. Bondiveres (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Gwonor, I'm not sure this edit is correct, for the following reasons. 1/ If BV is correct that this is the name of this system, there is no need to mention it. If someone uses a microscope, we don't specify that it was a Leica or Olympus either. 2/ However, the abstract cited refers to "an Automated Imaging Microscope System", which implies that this is a generic indication, not a specific name. What I propose is to restore the previous version, but as a compromise, to replace ] with ], thereby using the term used in the publication, but respecting the AfD outcome for Automated Imaging Microscope System. The extra reference is not needed, it is not new (it was brought forward in all three related AfDs) and if you have a second look, Timiras is only a junior author on it (neither first nor last) and as far as I can see only a trick to get this reference back into WP. The paper still is hardly cited (according to Web of Science, 5 times since 2005), so nothing has changed since the previous AfDs (although it is the most-cited of her papers on which Garan was a co-author, she has many papers that had a much greater impact - she has 10 papers with over 80 citations each). As for Segall, if there is a reliable source that shows that he indeed was Timiras' PhD student, his name could be added in a "scientist infobox" in the "former students" (or similar) field. If he's notable, an article could be created and then his wikilinked name could be added as a co-founder in the Timiras article.

• Let me add one comment about BV's repeated accusations that I'm engaged in some sort of a vendetta here because of a disagreement about the Phenome article. There is a connection, but it is tangential: while working on that article, I encountered the claim that the term was coined by Steven Garan. That made me follow the link to his bio and that led me to the walled garden that Sgaran had created. It's as simple as that. Cheers, Crusio (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that solution should be satisfactory. Also, I appreciate your advice regarding how to add Steven Garan added back to the article. BV, if you can provide a reliable source that shows Garan as a student of Timiras, that can be added back to the article. Thanks everyone for all your time!--Gnowor_C 18:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is nothing tangential about what Wim Crusio's intentions are. The amount of effort he is expending on this issue goes way beyond what a "normal" person would do regarding a matter such as this. I will none the less reply to his statements. As far as the Automated Imaging Microscope System is concerned, the reason why it was created, was for: "Creating Three-Dimensional Neuronal Maps of the Mouse Hypothalamus". If you read the entry: automated tissue image analysis there is no mention of creating three-dimensional neuronal Maps. Wim Crusio's reference to Leica or Olympus microscopes is a red herring, because the key to the AIMS "system" is to create the three-dimensional maps so that cell population densities can be determined, and he know's that, but he intentionally fails to mention that. Wim Crusio's intention is to eliminate any reference to the name of the system or the person who created it. He vaguely admitted to going on a vendetta to suppress any information by the person that over ruled his will to redirect the word Phenomics to Phenotype. His act was not "tangential" but deliberate. The system was developed by Garan, please refer to the article http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3459, he should be noted as the person who created it. Also refer to: Garan SA, Neudorf J, Tonkin J, McCook LR, Timiras PS. (December, 2000). Creating Three-Dimensional Neuronal Maps of the Mouse Hypothalamus Using an Automated Imaging Microscope System. Experimental Gerontology. The information on Segall can be found at: http://crea.berkeley.edu/paul_segall_profile.shtml. As far as Wim Crusio's reference to a Walled Garden, this is another red herring; because he has created Wiki entries for a large number of his friends as well as creating sock puppets to augment his own rather large personal wiki page, I would consider that a rather significant Walled Garden. The previous sentence is only a response to his statements and would not have been mentioned if not for his statements. Please feel free to ask any questions or request more reference data. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

BV, it's very simple: if you think I'm guilty of sockpuppeteering, open an investigation about that (you know how to do that, you've been involved in a case before). If you think that the bio on me should be deleted, please take it to AfD. I dearly hope you succeed. If you think that I am guilty of a vendetta against you, report me at one of the WP:Administrators' noticeboards. If you think there is anything amiss with any article that I created, feel free to take it to AfD and make your case there. If you disagree with the AfD outcomes on AIMS/Steven Garan/Aging Research Institute, take it to WP:deletion review. WP has good processes for all these cases and if you're right, your articles will be undeleted, the ones I created will be deleted, and I'll be blocked indefinitely. But there is no reason to keep bugging Gnowor (or myself) about this, we are not admins and cannot undelete articles or revert AfD decisions. This is my final contribution to this discussion. --Crusio (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Wim Crusio has carried out a systematic campaign against my friend and his co-researcher, who I am an advocate for, is quite clear in Wim Crusio's documented actions and his admissions, just refer to the logs of this page, the Timiras page and the other pages, for none "tangential" proof. As for the fact that Wim Crusio has created Wiki pages for a large number of his friends is also documented on his own user page. Regarding the case of a sock puppet augmenting WIm Crusio's own page, is quite obvious to most intelligent people. The best proof I can supply of this sock puppet case is that as of December 22nd, 2010 the Wim Crusio Wiki page constitutes 28,725 bytes of information, where as the Wiki page for Ernest Rutherford, the "The father nuclear physics" and winner of the nobel prize, only has a Wiki page of 27,302 bytes as of December 22nd, 2010. Please feel free to verify the byte count of the two Wiki pages, I think you will agree that there is something unusual going on, when an obscure biologist at an obscure institute in an obscure town called Talence in the western part of France, has a bigger Wiki page than someone of the stature of Ernest Rutherford. But to respond to the suggestion that Wim Crusio's sites be flagged for deletion or weather his user be censored, would be a mean and vindictive action to take and I will not mimic that action of some one of Wim Crusio's ilk, and I would hope that others would refrain from such actions as well. Frankly I think it is touching that Crusio creates wiki pages for friends, an promotes his own accomplishments, as long as the information is correct, and I am certain the Wiki community will insure that. I think it is wonderful that Crusio honors his friends and promotes their actions regardless of how important or unimportant the information he posted may be. My only concern is that he does not re-write correct and well referenced information, and that is the purpose of this session, and weather Crusio creates Wiki pages of old gardener friends is his business, and I do not consider stopping this activity worth one second of my time. Unfortunately Wim Crusio's modus operandi is to mislead and to distort information when it suits him, and that is what I have been trying to stop him from doing, and this is the place where his actions have been halted and reversed, and I thank Gnowor for his efforts. And the fact that Wim Crusio is relentless in his campaign and he even suggests that others adopt his tactics of targeted deletion of information and distortion of the facts, only sheds light on his true character and his true intentions. Bondiveres (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The size of Wim Crusio's Wiki page

Hi Gnowor,

As of December 22nd, 2010 the Wim Crusio Wiki page constituted 28,725 bytes of information, where as the Wiki page for Ernest Rutherford, "The father nuclear physics" and winner of the nobel prize, only has a Wiki page of 27,302 bytes as of December 22nd, 2010, and Maurice Wilkins who won the nobel prize for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA has a wiki page of only 23,014 bytes, while Elizabeth Blackburn who won the nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009 has only 11,065 bytes on her wiki page. I could add many more names of nobel prize winners, but if you wish to do so, please feel free to compare the amount of information in Wim Crusio's wki page to that of most nobel prize winners. I just thought I would point this fact out to the wiki community and ask for your comments on Win Crusio's Wiki page. Please comment on weather you think it is too large and perhaps should be reviewed or if you think the wiki pages of Ernest Rutherford and many of his fellow nobel prize winners are simply too small. Please feel free to leave your comments below this post. Bondiveres (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Listed are wiki page sizes of all the nobel prize winners for Physiology or Medicine for the last 8 years. Please compared these to Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes:

Robert G. Edwards 11,098 bytes
Jack W. Szostak 7,504 bytes
Carol W. Greide 9,605 bytes
Elizabeth Blackburn 11,065 bytes
Luc Montagnier 18,028 bytes
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi 6,950 bytes
Harald zur Hausen 9,985 bytes
Oliver Smithies 14,131 bytes
Martin Evans 24,109 bytes
Mario Capecch 13,940 bytes
Craig Mello 14,217 bytes
Andrew Fire 9,262 bytes
Robin Warren 5,187 bytes
Barry Marshall 13,074 bytes
Linda B. Buck 6,617 bytes
Richard Axel 19,924 bytes
Peter Mansfield 5,684 bytes
Paul Lauterbur 14,653 bytes
John E. Sulston 7,715 bytes
H. Robert Horvitz 4,080 bytes
Sydney Brenner 14,580 bytes

Note: All amounts displayed are as of 22 December 2010, and the average page size of these Nobel Laureates is 11,496 bytes, which is less than half that of Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes.

Based upon the above data, it would appear that a certain amount of information on Wim Crusio's wiki page was added by a sock puppet that he created in order to promote him self. I can only suggest this based on what I see from the data. I can not imagine how else Wim Crusio can have a wiki page more than twice the size of the average Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine for the last 8 years. I hope this is not the case, but I welcome your thoughts on this. I only ask one thing, and that is to explain how Wim Crusio's wiki should be more than twice the size of any of the Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine for the last 8 years and twice the size of an average winner of that prize. I look forward to hearing your comments. Bondiveres (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a difference in page sizes. Unfortunately, I believe that's an inherent fact of how Misplaced Pages operates. For example this page is approximately 13k. As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I think a lot of people in the world deserve a larger page than the one just cited. That being said, I don't have the time or energy to create pages for all in question.

Someone has the relevant information to create a page for Wim Crusio. If you believe it was a sockpuppet, I recommend searching the page history and finding evidence of such rather than just assuming it is the case. If you have the edits to prove your point, it will be given much more weight by the community. Additionally, if you feel that other people deserve larger pages, that should give you a great place to start if you'd like to contribute more to Misplaced Pages. Again, we can either trim valuable content because we can't find enough about some supremely notable person, or we can work to find that content. Additionally, your argument seems to border on a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.

If you can find information that is not necessary to the encyclopaedia in Wim's article, and the community agrees with you, it can probably be removed. That being said, given your history with Crusio, that might be seen as a vendetta. If you believe he has a vendetta against you, take the higher road and don't return the favor. Rather than having discussions about ways to get back at Crusio, you could be adding valuable information that you have to a world repository of information. Hope this helps.--Gnowor_C 00:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnowor,

I am shedding light on facts that were not known to most people, regarding the size of Wim Crusio's wiki content and it's relative size as it compares to the wiki pages of Nobel Laureates in the field Physiology or Medicine. I will take the high road as you suggest and add back the content that Crusio has deleted, and therefore add back valuable information to a world repository of information, so that others can learn about facts that Crusio, wants to hide from other people. I hope Wim Crusio takes the "High Road" and does not continues his vendetta, although I suspect he will. I hope Crusio takes your advice, but I does not think that is will. Time will tell. All the best, for the Holidays Bondiveres (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BV, I've already given many hours of my time to these discussions. I fought for the inclusion of information on the Paola S. Timiras page. Crusio seemed to think initially that manipulating that page was a way to get information included in the encyclopedia that the community had already decided was not needed. I did not subscribe to that view as I like to hold on to the principle of assuming good faith as long as possible. Still, when Crusio suggested that simply renaming the link was enough and the source (which hasn't received recognition from the scientific community) was not needed, other issues arose.

The following may seem harsh, but as an editor with a few thousand edits, this may accurately reflect the view of third parties who look upon this situation, as I am one of those third parties. This is meant only as an alert to how the situation might be perceived.

You suggested Crusio was being vindictive, and went after his eponymous page. Additionally, I feel as if you've argued for the reliability and notability of your information without citing to policy on the matter, and thus you make arguments which go against policy in some cases. It has started to feel as if it has been a waste of my time to poor through these lengthy policy pages in order to better handle this situation, when it seems you have not invested similar efforts despite myself and others pointing you to these policy pages. Similarly, when I make an assertion that you're making an "other stuff exists" argument, you fail to respond to that comment, also suggesting you haven't read policy. You have made allegations of sockpuppetry without referring to it's policy page. It feels as if you spend more time making what are becoming futile arguments than constructively contributing to the encyclopedia. At this point, it feels like your efforts are made only to get credit for your substantial off-wiki, but yet non-wiki-notable work.

I offer two alternate suggestions at this point:

1. Review Misplaced Pages policy pages. Then, proceed to make constructive edits to other pages demonstrating that your care is for Misplaced Pages, and not gaining notability for yourself through Misplaced Pages (or pursuing a vendatta against a veteran editor whom you believe has a vendetta against you). Additionally, while reviewing policy pages, you should learn about pursuing action through articles for deletion, sockpuppet investigation, and the administrator's noticeboard. After reviewing policy, you'll be able to pursue action along these lines if you believe it to be appropriate.
2. Invest time in gaining notability for your work off-wiki. A few calls to a few WP:RS reliable newspapers, or more scientific publications might be all you need to gain notability sufficient to warrant coverage on Misplaced Pages. It will help you gain notability much quicker than continuing these discussions.

With that, I'm afraid we've reached the limit of time that I'm willing to devote to this matter. BV, I do believe you have the best intentions and heart, and that you feel you've been wronged by the Misplaced Pages community. I hope that as you continue to edit on matters unrelated to this one, that you'll better understand what Misplaced Pages is and the policies and guidelines the community work with. Again, I'm sorry I can't be of more assistance. I wish you only the best.

P.S. I will be moving this conversation here by tomorrow. I don't believe this situation best reflects you and your abilities, BV, and by moving the conversation, I hope that it remains somewhat hidden so that you can contribute to the encyclopedia in a way that reflects your abilities in a better light.--Gnowor_C 04:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)