User talk:Logger9/Archives/2011/January

Copyright block

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from other sources without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you believe this block is unjustified or if you are able to provide a credible assertion that you understand and intend to comply with these policies, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked your account. You are still creating copyright problems on Wikipedia. At 20:17 on 22 December, you restored the following, which had already been removed as a copyright problem: [1]. Among the content you restored, we find the following:

Griffith established that the strength of glass is largely determined by surface defects and cracks of various shapes and depths, which arise mainly from contact with solids and from defects in the silica blanks or fiber preforms. An external stress S results in stress concentrations at the ends of the surface defects, which are proportional to the external load mulitplied by the square root of the ratio of the crack depth 'd' to the radius at the end of the flaw (or defect) 'r'.

In "Vitreous phosphate coatings on silicate glasses" by T. K. Pavlushkina and O. A. Gladushko, Glass and Ceramics February 15, 2005, we find the following:

Griffith established that the strength of glass is largely determined by surface defects and cracks of various shapes and depths, which arise mainly from contact with solids and from defects in the silica blanks. An external tensile stress S results in stress concentrations a e at the ends of the surface defects, which are proportional to the external load multiplied by the square root of the ratio of the crack depth h to the radius at the end of the defect p:

This is not the extent of the pasting; it continues.

Your note here, indicating that "'FYI: I do not copy content directly: I paraphrase." suggests that you may not understand the extent of paraphrase required to avoid infringing copyright. I have bolded to emphasize content copied verbatim. Your only change to the passage I have offered as an example above was to alter "the end of the defect p" to read "the end of the flaw (or defect) 'r'".

I do not believe that you should be unblocked without some compelling reason to believe that you both understand our copyright policies and are willing and able to comply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am more than willing to accommodate you and fulfill all your requests in this matter. Moreeover, I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused on the administrative end. I am beginning to study your copyright laws in detail now, with the ultimate goal of rewriting any and all questionable material, and re-posting any sections (or complete articles) which have already been blocked or transferred en masse.

I would appreciate it very much if you would work with me on this over the course of the next week in order to see if we can get a solid handle on it before the following week, during which I will be leaving town. Then when I return, I would be glad to continue work on any and all articles in question until they have all been rewritten to your satisfaction, and re-posted.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter. Please advise. -- logger9 (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. As explained elsewhere, Wikipedia's copyright policies require that you must rewrite non-free content in your own words, excepting only brief and clearly marked and attributed quotations. Our plagiarism guideline requires that even if the content is free, you must note that you are copying if you reproduce it here. You cannot even copy content from one article to another (unless you are the sole author of the text) without attribution. Even Wikipedia's text is under copyright. The key question here is whether you are willing and able to contribute content in a manner consistent with our requirements.

What really concerns me is your earlier indication that you do not copy content, but paraphrase. The examples I have supplied here and at your CCI are so minimally altered that they would not constitute "paraphrase" in any definition of the word I know. Since the sources you use are not all easily accessible, it will be a challenge to ensure that your contributions are substantially altered enough to alleviate our concerns, and it would require that somebody monitor your contributions until we are sure that the content is suitable for inclusion and that problems will not recur. I have seen contributors successfully navigate this process, but it is by no means easy.

I will speak to your former mentor to see if he has any suggestions for how best to proceed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your timely response. I must say that I am truly sorry for those examples which had not been altered -- other than a word replacement here and there. Please rest assured that is NOT my idea of paraphrasing. I only edited those portions of that article which I was told to. Now that I know that is unacceptable, I will surely try my hardest not repeat that form of minimal editing. I am fully prepared to begin editing of the articles whenever you say so. I think that it would be best to take things one paragraph at a time. -- logger9 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

All right; first I need to clarify for your benefit and that of anyone watching that you have not been banned from Wikipedia; you have been indefinitely blocked. An indefinite block is so-called because it may be lifted at any point that it is considered that the problem is resolved. See WP:INDEF. Frequently, indefinite blocks are lifted once a way forward presents itself. This block was instituted solely due to copyright concerns; it is not a ban, and any contributor who believes a ban is necessary should seek it through appropriate avenues.

In terms of the block, I have spoken to your former mentor about this. At this point, as I suggested above, I believe that we would need to find somebody knowledgeable in your area who would be willing to help oversee your edits to ensure that copyright problems do not continue. Your former mentor has suggested a contributor who may be willing to assist in this, and I will ask him if he has any input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The recommended contributor is not willing to assist in this manner. If I am not able to find a neutral, responsible contributor who can help here, I'm afraid that I personally will not be comfortable unblocking you. I appreciate your note above that you do recognize the difference between legitimate paraphrase and copying, but that only opens more questions as to why you continued. At least as far back as July 2009, here, you were advised that your behavior was a violation of our copyright policy. You were linked to it and had the opportunity to read it. You were also cautioned that you would be blocked if your behavior continued. Therefore, there was no reason for you not to know that our copyright policy would forbid you to paste content in November 2010, when you placed this:

Extended content

It should be stressed that the original Lindemann model for vibrational melting, like many of its more sophisticated successors, refers only to a crystal with the simplest possible structure, i.e. assemblies of closed packed atoms. Crystals containing more complex molecules as unit of structure exhibit a vibrational complexity which rules out any simple rule of lattice stability, determined merely by vibrational amplitudes of the molecular centers of mass. Futhermore, the Lindemann model is based on harmonic forces, which never give way, whereas melting must involve bond breaking. This is another serious defect of the model The this 2003 source says: It should be stressed that the original Lindemann model for vibrational melting, like many of its more sophisticated successors, refers only to a crystal with the simplest possible structure, i.e. assemblies of closed packed atoms. Crystals containing more complex molecules as unit of structure exhibit a vibrational complexity which rules out any simple rule of lattice stability, determined merely by vibrational amplitudes of the molecular centers of mass. Futhermore, the Lindemann model is based on harmonic forces, which never give way, whereas melting must involve bond breaking. This is another serious defect of the model. Again, I have bolded exact copying in this copied content to demonstrate the similarity.

I do not know why you chose to continue copying content onto Wikipedia after you had been clearly advised that you could not, but the fact that you did raises questions as to whether you can be trusted to stop. In order to maintain safe harbor under the US copyright laws that protect online service providers, providers must take reasonable steps to suspend access to repeat copyright offenders. Allowing you to continue unsupervised in the face of evidence that you have willfully violated these policies may put us at legal risk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For these actions, I am truly sorry. And I understand your longterm concerns completely. Some of these sections had been removed in their entirey, but only portions of them had been labeled as out-of-bounds. Again, I do apologize, and promise to more closely scrutinze any addional edits which may be made by me. -- logger9 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub-conversation

Are you kidding? We have not halfway cleaned up the mess you fabricated, and you want to discuss your come back?

What do you mean by "the articles"? Those you used to defend as if they were your private property? There will be never again anything like "plastic deformations of solids" while there is already a sound article plasticity (physics).

What do you mean by "I was told to"? Aren't you adult? Do you have as little self-esteem as you have shown jugdement?

This is not just an affair between Moonriddengirl and yourself. And the copyright violations are not the only problem with your writing. Your entire edit history shows that you never understood what this encyclopedia is about. I strongly oppose that the current ban be lifted any soon. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

MP (PP): I fully expected to hear some ranting and raving from you soon. I am sorry to know how much it bothers you to think that I might be continuing to contribute in a major way to this organization -- as I have since 2 years ago this very day.

I have yet to fully understand your obsessive and irrationally hostile attitudes towards anything I set my hand to. But obviously it isn't going to go away. Please try not to let it bother you. Believe it or not, there are actually more important things in this world besides your hostility towards me.

Please also try to understand that I do not intend to fill my mailbox in the coming weeks with ugliness and mudslinging of any sort of continuing negative interaction with you. I think we fully understand each others' position on these issues. For the benefit of Wikipedia and its increasinlgy positive reputation, let's try (if it is at all humanly possible) to minimize the insults, personal trashing, and general inappropriate exposure of bad sentiments. Believe it or not, that's not what this thing is all about. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration in this matter....and have a Happy New Year ! -- logger9 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I have answered your question before. But it might be interesting for other debaters that I briefly give some background.

I am a physical chemist with long experience in the spectroscopy of liquids and glasses. I want to contribute to WP in this special area. However, I find myself disrupted again and again by your edits. While I struggle for each sentence and each word to be accurate and clear and brief, you insert hundreds of badly written lines at once. Dealing with these insertions is a pain; it is much much easier to write an article from scratch than to copyedit your input - not to mention the endless and fruitless debates on talk pages, where you promised several times to pace down and to discuss paragraph by paragraph, only to return a few days later to bulk inserting and edit warring.

Your texts are often only remotely related to the lemma. Frequently you duplicate entire sections from other articles instead of providing a short summary and a link. Some of your contributions are incomprehensible even for an expert, others re-explain basics in a patronizing way. You behave as the exclusive owner of the five or ten long articles on fringe lemmata to which you contributed almost exclusively; and you try to attract readers by putting a list of these articles in the "See also" section of numerous other articles: In short, instead of participating in a cooperative writing effort, you are abusing WP as a publication platform for highly personal scientific essays.

Since someone told you to provide references you do so in a way that shows a disconcerting lack of judgement: often, for one sentence you list five or more research papers which leads the very idea of referencing ad absurdum. Many of your references are hopelessly outdated; others are taken seemingly at random from the recent research literature. In most cases it would be much more appropriate to reference a textbook or a review article; in this field, where most research articles are forgotten soon and many are plain wrong, compiling an arbitrary selection of primary sources amounts to original research.

Other editors and admins intervened in the past when your behavior was in conflict with rules of conduct. Unfortunately, most of them were not familiar enough with the subject to assess also the contents of your contributions. Now we see where this has led: twenty or more articles contaminated by copyright violations; a painstaking cleanup work inflicted upon the community.

To explain to myself why I am investing so much time in this, I like to think that this is also kind of social research: Where is this community's limit of patience and indulgence? What must happen before a disruptive editor is called a disruptive editor? Perhaps in the end I will write a paper about this experience.

In some debates and in some figure captions you revealed your real name. Aren't you afraid that your students discover how you are making a fool of yourself? It will be better for WP and it will be better for yourself if you stay away. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that it is against WP policy for MP to be continuing her longstanding practice of calling me names in public. I could make list of them if anyone is interested. -- logger9 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

MP(PP) If it is therapuetic for you to keep dumping all over my efforts here @WP in such an obsessive fashion, then I guess that I should say keep it coming -- although as I said before, it would be nice if you could limit extensive trash like this to your own page instead of mine. Write your term paper (or book even ?) all about it. Do whatever you have to do. It is clearly in your nature to tear me apart.

In the meantime, I will be reading, learning, searching and working. In case you had not noticed, the combined fields of materials science and nanotechnology (not to mention computer generated glass work) are on a roll..... -- logger9 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Logger9, I have tried to keep out of this situation and don't really want to get involved in the copyvio technicalities but I'm afraid to say that plagiarism is one of the worst offences any professional scientist can make and your credibility in my eyes is now zero. Everything that Marie Poise has said above is true. My first encounter with you was two years ago on Glass and related articles where you copied large sections from one wikipedia article to another. This was to say the least frustrating, especially when some of the sections you were copying and pasting were written by myself. You also started to include large sections of prose which were poorly written and completely inaccessible to anyone without specific high level of expertise in the subject area. In those two years since you have not learnt any of the lessons from what caused problems with your contributions in the first place. We tolerated some of your additions and articles you created only because most of us do not have the time to trawl through the vast quantities of prose you have added, since we're all volunteers we don't have the time to spare to fix your mistakes and shouldn't be expected to. But NOW it turns out many of these contributions were plagiarised. This is completely unacceptable both on and off wikipedia.

You were in the past given many many warnings that your contributions were not suitable for wikipedia and many opportunities to work with other editors to edit constructively. But you have ignored every one of us, never truly admitting that there is a problem with your contributions when so many trusted, responsible and expert editors here find them to be unencyclopedic and unsuitable for this project. I think this last point is the key reason why you have not been successful here and why you currently face this serious situation. You have not understood what makes an article encyclopedic and accessible to readers. Since it is now evident that much of your work here was plagiarised I don't think there will be many people here willing to give you a second chance. If we do give you a second chance we will need assurance and evidence that you realise that what we are actually doing here is writing an encyclopedia that is accessible to all readers. We are not in the business of publishing users personal (plagiarised) essay's. Polyamorph (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye, WP Glass Taskforce

Unfortunatley, neither JDrewitt nor MP choose to recognize the arguable and much ballyhooed concept of the glass as a viscous liquid on geological timescales. In fact, the open assertion to glass strictly as a solid is evidence of the intellectual limitations of these authors:

Glass is an amorphous solid, it exhibits an atomic structure close to that observed in the supercooled liquid phase but displays all the mechanical properties of a solid. The notion that glass flows to an appreciable extent over extended periods of time is not supported by empirical research or theoretical analysis.

Unfortunatey, this is only true on experimental timescales, as evidenced clearly in the articles which I have created and contributed to, and are gradually being destroyed by the current crusade. They continue with the following excerpt:

The observation that old windows are sometimes found to be thicker at the bottom than at the top is often offered as supporting evidence for the view that glass flows over a timescale of centuries. The assumption being that the glass was once uniform, but has flowed to its new shape, which is a property of liquid. However, this assumption is incorrect, glass does not flow. The reason for the observation is that in the past, when panes of glass were commonly made by glassblowers, the technique used was to spin molten glass so as to create a round, mostly flat and even plate (the crown glass process, described above). This plate was then cut to fit a window. The pieces were not, however, absolutely flat; the edges of the disk became thicker as the glass spun. When installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed thicker side down both for the sake of stability and to prevent water accumulating in the lead cames at the bottom of the window.

Is this actually the type of laboratory evidence you want to have represent you in this extremely popular subject in the scientific literature ?? Serious authors have long been aware of these arguments, and hardly take them seriously in scientific literature. I.E. These authors speak to school children, not to fundamentals of real science.

The only real glasssman you ever had here was Afluegel. When I showed up 2 years ago this week, JD was so desparately concerned about his own WP status that he immediately swapped barnstars with Afluegel -- who reciprocated with the condition that JD would keep his discussion of self-torture and mutilation off of the glass discussion pages.

AFluegel was completley supportive of eveything I (we) did here @ WP. The idea for the strengh of glass article was actually his, and even thought I was very hesitant to use that title, he suggested it strongly -- so we went with it. We both understood completely that there is still much work to be done there -- well beyond the simple writing/repair job of plagiarism. With more hard work, this approach can be successfylly used in order to re-post any and all of these scientifically valuable articles in this field. To simply tear them down is the greatest waste of time of all. The key is do to somethinng positive and constructive with them, even if it requires a line-by-line re-rewrite -- which can be done anytime.

Afluegel used the savvy and juice I brought to WP in order to finally kick-start a desperately-needed WP Glass TaskForce. But now it would appear that you have managed to chase him away for good. And if you are successful, it looks like you might manage also to completely destroy everything that we managed to accomplish (with lots of sweat and hard work). Well, it's your show !

My contributions are based on the longstanding classical work, which has never been refuted, combined with cutting edge laboratory research completed within the last several years. The arguments you are accepting from them on your most highly visited pages were long ago abandoned in any respectable scientific circles.

It might help to point out that all of my work in this area is based on the nature of matter at its most fundamental atomic or molecular level of physical and chemical behavior. It is easy to see that it is all thoroughly referenced in great detail. According to MP, if your references are old enough, then they are simply out-of-date. Could someone please tell this to Albert Einstein before it is too late ?

They might prefer it if the great debate on the physics of glass could be resolved overnight. Unfortunately, some good (and even GREAT) things in life take more time than that. That is the nature of scientific endeavor! As I have pointed out several times previously to these authors, it is what we call the scientific method.

Moreover, to have editors with little or no scientific training come in and say that the work is hard to read is pointless at best. The work is not written for the layman, and neither is the majority of WP physics literature. You simply cannot expect an English major to read an article which utilizes mathematics including serious equations and variables. Why should you?

WP is excellent is specializing, and the physics of glassy abd crystalline solids is an extrmely specialized subject -- of immense current interest in the scientific community. It is not a subject to be taken lightly, or tossed off as peripheral. Much to the contrary, it is serious science. If you are not familiar with the literature in this area, then you should certainly not be writing on the subject matter.

These WP authors are completely and totally closed-minded on an extremely debatable subject. JD has been trying his hardest to destroy me ever since I made my first contribution to the article on Glass which he clearly considers as his territory (along with his other articles on how he likes to torture himself physically).

Is this honestly how you wish to be represented in the public eye ? This is exactly the type of thing that makes you seriously vulnerable in scientific circles. I have tried to offer you more -- something far more serious on the subjects of glass, plastic deformation, defect mobility and solid state phase transformations in general. My contribtiosn are the result of years of post-graduate study in soild state physics at the University of Washington. They were paid for personally by money earned working on thin films of colloidal crystals for one of the largest think tanks in the United States. In fact, I was nominated at one point to be an IBM Fellow. I have also received a naitonal award for public speaking, on my own research on the use of molten glass for solar energy conversion and storage.

I am truly sorry for not staying within your guidelines as concerns WP polices on plagiarism. And I have stated repeatedly that I would be more than willing to spend whatever time is necessary to learn how not to repeat these mistakes. I sincerely hope that you can accept that.

If not, I completely understand. What you are getting from me is free from charge to you. I have spents months of my life donating to this organization, and I would like to continue with those contributions on more WP-policy-educated basis. But if you don't want it, simply say so. -- logger9 (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Logger9 you say "I would be more than willing to spend whatever time is necessary to learn how not to repeat these mistakes" - this is incredibly easy lesson to learn. You don't COPY and PASTE copyrighted content.

Now there is true stroke of genius!

It takes all of less than a second to learn this.

I was thnking maybe couple of seconds. But obviously you are wayyy out of my league.

We will not give you any extra time to learn this.

So you have designated yourself as the ultimate authority on this subject. Wow !

we expect that you already know tht copying is wrong and just simply will not do it again.

Actually, that is indeed (believe it or not) a completely valid statement of the truth.

As for whether or not we want your contributions, it is safe to say that everything you do here is against consensus and without collaboration with trusted and experienced editors. So if you are unable to edit in a manner dictated by wikipedia policy, then I'm afraid to say, no we don't want your contributions. Polyamorph (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess that you simply aren't capable of listening, or would prefer not to --as I have stated repeatedly to the contrary.

And Afluegel was not completely accepting of everything you did, they had concerns about the unencyclopedic nature of you contributions. Perhaps they had more patience with you than the rest of us but we didn't chase them away, Afluegel left abruptly for reasons unknown and are now listed on WP:MISS. There was no indication as to why they left and they are missed by many of us for their prolific contributions to glass related articles. Polyamorph (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say that I don't think that all of the time spent infighting here (as opposed to productive work) had a very positive influence on him. -- logger9 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Logger9, I'm going to be very straight forward with you. First, I have no animosity toward you personally. I was actually very interested in what you were trying ro tell us, but unfortunately, what you write often is very hard to read. Even more puzzling is that, when you finally decide to engage someone in discussion, you can often be quite eloquent. Now, a persons writing style is something like a fingerprint, and it was quite obvious from the start that someone else's fingerprints were all over you work. In an environment where every article is piece-mealed together, your work really stood out as jumping from one style in in one paragraph to a completely different style in the next. That raised red flags with me immediately.

Now plagiarism is not something new; something that was just invented for Wikipedia. In the world of writing, outside of Wikipedia, plagiarism is one of the worst crimes you could commit. What it amounts to is stealing, and this is true for all forms of writing, from scientific journals to a comedian's jokes. What happens when you plagiarise is that you loose your integrity. Suddenly, no one feels that they can trust you. Everything that you write from now on will either be taken with a grain of salt, or be scrutinized with a fine tooth comb. You will have to work especialy hard to recover from that.

The nature of the piece-meal work, though, draws some particular attention. Now I don't understand much of what you've written, so the only basis which I have for this is my gut instinct, but nature of the work seems to indicate that some form of synthesis is going on. The trouble is, the only way to verify that you are not trying to push a novel theory, and supporting that theory by including "evidence" pieced together frome multiple sources, is to have another person who can understand what you are writing compare it to the sources, and to edit it accordingly. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own theories. What is important is to read a source, and summarize its conclusions, but not to include your own conclusions. Right now, the only person volenteering to do this editing is Marie.

I want to be clear. I am not accusing you of synthesis. I have no factual basis for an accusation. I'm only trying to demonstrate to you that the nature of the writing style, combined with the plagiarism, is suspicious.

Writing style aside, while plagiarism is reprehensible, I think some of the main problems that you have here comes from your tactics more than anything else. Wikipedia is very accepting of alternate points of view, but it is unacceptable to push "the only point of view." Wikipedia is foremost about achieving consensus. Consensus is a group, as a whole, deciding the best way to move toward a mutual goal. In many cases, consensus is much like an overwhelming majority, though not always. It doesn't matter how right your additions are, you still need to convince others of their merit. However, you seem to ignore everyone else until you become backed in a corner. Not only is that no way to achieve consensus, but many people find it to be extremely insulting. In many ways, some patience, diplomacy, and a willingness to engage in discussion with others will help you out immensely.

Again with writing, it would benefit you greatly to study what makes a piece of work encyclopedic rather than text-book, or more often, scientific abstract style. Encyclopedic writing is more related to journalistic style.

Now, having lost our trust, it's going to be very hard to get that back again. If you wish to continue you're going to need a mentor, and it's not going to be easy to find someone willing. You will probably have to start off making changes on your user space, then getting those changes approved before they can be placed in an article. You will need to be far more open and diplomatic than ever before. You will have to work professionally with others,even those who disagree with you, and find that mutual goal. And still it will be a long, arduous process. I wish you luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You write: Wikipedia is very accepting of alternate points of view, but it is unacceptable to push the only point of view. And you are telling this to me, who has been always been willing to work with anyone, as opposed to the Glass authors who strictly see it their way.

At one point you were trying to rewrite the intro to the glass transition, an extremely sensitive subject. How can you possibly expect to seriously contribute to a vital section of an important scientific article in a field in which you have no training or expertise ? -- logger9 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My expertise is in writing. My goal on the Glass transition article was to help you make your own additions acceptable to everyone else. If you don't see the value of my help, then I can offer you no further assistance. Zaereth (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Logger9, might I suggest that you would do better to address the issues of plagiarism and copyright violation, rather than reopen past disputes? You claim to be a university professor - surely you would fail one of your students if you caught them trying passing off someone else's work as their own? Regarding copyright, this isn't some minor issue of wikipedia rules, it's the law of the land.

As a starting point, you need to go through every single edit you have ever made on Wikipedia and check whether what you posted might possibly be construed as a copyright violation. If you didn't have the legal right to post it then it needs to be deleted. To be blunt, you have introduced significant problems into wikipedia's physics articles, and you should take some responsibility for cleaning them up. (I'm not sure whether it would be seen as appropriate for you to actually delete the content yourself, but if it isn't then if you point out the issues here then I'm happy to remove any problematic content.) Djr32 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already made it perfectly clear that I will gladly take full responsibility for cleaning them up. If I can get a few of these monkeys off of my back, then I sincerely hope that we can begin work ASAP (tho i will visiting my son 1/6 - 1/10). -- logger9 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)