Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why do you keep deleting my link to my organizations website? My org is affiliated with a higher institution Parsons School of Design and is completely legit. Have a look yourself. We do not make money, we are just trying to unify the d and m community. Thank you. (unsigned by 149.31.67.93 on 16:50, 13 November 2006)

See the Talk:Design_management page, where I explained my edits. --Ronz 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, unfortunately I've noticed that you've removed the link to my Blog: Vol. 2: design-management.de. Actually there are two reasons why the link shall remain: 1.) I'm an internationally recognized lecturer for all major international Design Management programmes across the globe for more than 8 years. I even co-developed a Masters Degree programme in Design Management in the Netherlands. As a result of regular student requests for information about design, management and business issues around design management I've founded the blog in 2003. So far it is the single comprehensive resource on the topic of design management worldwide (beside the Design Management Institute itself) which is regularly updated. 2.) Even though the domain (*.de) suggests that this is a German blog the content is entirely written in English. Accordingly please keep my blog listed as is. Thanks for this! -> Ralf Beuker (Wikipedia User Name: Rbeuker): Editor of Vol. 2: design-management.de -> http://www.design-management.de Rbeuker 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the merge to Customer experience management. Did you see my comment on the talk page? I'd like to hear your perspective. --Ronz 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't know much about the subject. I ran across CEM organization while clearing out the backlog at WikiProject Wikify. Looking at the individual pages, I don't think that they are strong enough to stand on their own - they don't have enough context, and I think the content contained in them would be better served on the main Customer experience management page. I would support any attempts to merge all of them into one article.TredWel 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On 6 December 2006 you removed Cornell Human Factors and Ergonomics Research Group from the external links section of the article on Ergonomics. Why is that linkspam? It seems to me that it is appropriate to the article - and it does not push a commercial firm, etc. Pzavon 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. My mistake. I should have written "per WP:EL" and made a note on the talk page. I'll rectify. --Ronz 04:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

you said on my page ". . . we're not going to list each and every ergonomics-related research group." and I have no argument with that. However, that particular web page seems to be an excellent collection of support, description, and guidance material about ergonomics, and is provided by what I understand to be one of the top groups in ergonomics. Pzavon 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of service :-) Shot info 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick semi-protection of Color blindness‎!--Ronz 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Welkies. Anytime. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You have made some good suggestions here, but I fear that you are asking an impossiblity. If there is anyone who can get Wikipedia's servers to crash, you have met that person, who is probably the most prolific Usenet user and who has no inhibitions. There are also very strong issues related to WP:COI, WP:TEND, and WP:DE, and the legal controversies are not over, so that person would do well to stay away from editing here at all, but will probably not do it voluntarily.

I have witnessed, but not participated in, this user's Usenet discussions, and it's the worst type of behavior I have ever witnessed, and that's saying quite a bit (I have frequented chiropractic discussion groups where threats and foul language are the order of the day, and they are water compared to this user). Now it's being brought here, with outright lies and innuendos about myself, and if I attempt to defend myself, it will just add more fuel to her fire. She is already continually leaving her website URL all over the place in her comments, and lots of extraneous information not related to article content, in violation of the rules governing use of talk pages, as well as attacks on other editors like myself and Barrett. No one has removed it yet.... -- Fyslee 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is urgently needed on a spurious AfD [1]. -- Fyslee 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this warning directed at me because I asked her a question?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ilena&curid=5872272&diff=93260354&oldid=93258144

-- Fyslee 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I edited to clarify. I should be adding the diffs as well. --Ronz 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ronz: First an apology. You removed a link I posted under the listing for "Feldenkrais Method". I posted that in the last day or so. Seeing that it was gone, and not understanding why, I posted it again. Checking to see if it "stuck" that time, I saw your note that you had taken it down. Although my link was still up, I removed it myself pending discussion.

The link was: www.feldnet.com/articles.cfm

The link was to a page on my web site that included links to unique articles on the Feldenkrais Method each of which occupies a separate page on my site.

I am new to Wikipedia and do not understand all the ins and outs. I posted that link only because I saw links - which still exist - to other non-official Feldenkrais organizations. My intent was not to spam, but merely to add new information.

Your note said that my site was a "commercial site" in comparison to others or that the article linked were not of sufficient interest to warrant being left up.

In regard to commercialism, I must say the following: 1. my organization is a not-for-profit. We do offer training programs in the Method, but do not sell merchandise.

2. the last link which is still up is certainly as commercial as mine, does not include as many offerings for public information in the way of articles, and clearly displays the name of a single teacher in the nav bar. The Feldenkrais Guild (which is legitimately linked on the page) has a wide array of articles on the Feldenkrais Method, and does not put any single provider of educational services above the others. If uniqueness is a concern, then the Feldenkrais Guild link provides all that is offered by the last link.

On the grounds of fairness, I would suggest that only the official Feldenkrais sites which contain plenty of articles be allowed to link OR that my link be allowed along with the link for ones now currently at the bottom.

3. the link above that is for a decidedly commercial, for profit company that is a self-described "clearing house" of material it sells. It does not sell all materials available regarding the Method, but just the ones which it chooses according to its own commercial criteria. Many, many other sites sell merchandise related to the Feldenkrais Method. (Mine by the way, does not.) Included in those that sell such merchandise are the truly "official sites" listed in the first several slots. For North America, the Feldenkrais Guild is the impartial site that provides all necessary information and access to plenty of tapes, books, DVDs etc.

My primary concern is fairness. The two remaining commercial links provide nothing more unique than my site. All three of us are providers of educational programs and could be said to be competitors. To keep those two while removing mine is akin to posting a link for amazon.com and denying Barnes and Noble.

I would certainly like to have the link to my articles page restored. I believe that they do add scope to the section containing information on characteristics of the Feldenkrais Method not discussed in the body of the listing. Failing that I believe it only right to remove the links to the other two non-official "commercial" sites.

Teacher58 05:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Teacher58

Thanks for the apology and explanation. I think you've made a convincing argument, but it should be at least summarized on Talk:Feldenkrais_method, especially given the past discussions. --Ronz 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! I have edited my post after you made your comments. I am a bit compulsive as an editor. Again my apologies. I am new here. I will try to find the Talk:Feldenkrais_method page and get back to you. Teacher58 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Teacher58

I have posted a summary as you suggest. What happens next? BTW, as a new participant, may I ask what is your connection to Wikipedia? Are you employed as an editor, moderator or something like that. Just trying to get a feel for the landscape here. Teacher58 05:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Teacher58

I'm just another editor like yourself, only I've been editing here a while. --Ronz 06:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that I can re-post my link without you removing it given that you sate that I have made a "convincing argument"? To go on a little more, I believe that the articles on my "articles" page represent a carefully chosen array of articles that illustrate the breadth of the uses of the Feldenkrais Method. Included are: a first person article written by a professional writer about his experiences with Feldenkrais as a someone living with multiple sclerosis; an article about the application of the Method with professional musicians - a use gaining more notice including the hiring of some Feldenkrais teachers by orchestras, music conservatories, etc.; and article on the use of the Method with actors to help them increase the range of their ability to convey a variety of emotions and to extend their emotional range; and an article (actually written by another "competitor") about awareness and consciousness. All of these articles are reputable, none written by me though the one is from the Suzuki Music Teachers Journal is an interview with me conducted by a professor of violin from Ithaca College. All of these are from different areas of interest and application and I hope will serve to broaden understanding beyond "exercise", ordinary "adjunct medical" and "movement" issues per se. Teacher58 06:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Teacher58

Yes, repost it. --Ronz 06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate your motives. Teacher58 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Teacher58

I am not sure which standard you are referring to? Is this what you mean?

In an unrelated legal case, it has been written that because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases - when they involve public figures - rarely, if ever prevail. (See: New York Times v. Sullivan)

I considered leaving but rewording this and then just decided to remove it, since in Rosenthal v. Barrett, the state supreme court did not decide whether or not the statement was defamatory. However, if you want to add it, it needs to be reworded for accuracy. In general, the public figure plaintiff in a case of public interest must show that the the defendant acted with malice - but malice is a legal term. It means either "with knowledge" OR "reckless disregard for the truth" (that the statements were false). And that is not the only element this type of plaintiff must prove - do you really want to go into the standard of defamation, slapp suit etc. here? The sentence as it was written was too broad and not accurate, as more here is at issue (even on the merits) than whether or not Barrett was/is a public figure. Moreover, in this case, if the other defendants also "republished" on the internet and were not originators of the statements, then it is likely that their case will not ultimately be heard on the merits at all. It will either be dropped in light of the state supreme court decision, or the supreme court will hear and remand to consider in light of Barrett v. Rosenthal. Does this make sense? What I am trying to say is to leave the statment as it was would require at least another explanatory statement. Times v. Sullivan is a landmark case (literally, the case regarding free speech & defamation as related to public figures. However, the issue on which this case (as against the other defendants) may turn is not dependent on the merits (the Times standard and the standards for a Slapp suit), but is instead a matter of law interpreting Act. Let me know what you think - I may not be able to respond for a couple days as I have a court case coming up tomorrow.Jance 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear all of this discussion on litigation is way too long. I personally think that Barrett and co. should be sanctioned for filing frivilous lawsuits. Barrett is a public figure and the issues involved are of pubic interest - regardless of your position. Barrett made a career of criticizing "alternative" medicine, chiropractors and the like. What does he expect?? It is not like he is still practicing psychiatry somewhere. Anyway, my opinion aside, there were problems with what was written:

1. The state supreme court did not comment on the merits of the case, as to whether anyone defamed anyone. The only issue the court decided was whether or not an "active" computer user was provided immunity from liability under the "Communications Decency Act." The court held that it did.
2. IF the complaint alleged that Rosenthal was a primary publisher (or originator) of a defamatory statement (and there is a definition of that), the legal standard of proof in Barret's case is 'clear and convincing' - as a public figure, he must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants defamed him. It is utterly astonishing that Barrett's lawyer(s) did not seem to understanding the term 'malice'. As the appeals court pointed out, malice is not determined by the 'tenor' of the statements. If anything, the more "hyperbole, invective, and animated descriptive passages" the less likely it is. An opinion is not defamatory.
3. If I were you, I would simply provide a link to defamation article, rather than go into the details here.
4. And that gets to all the other stuff. What is the point in mentioning every defamation case? Is it not sufficient to make a general statement that Barrett has unsuccessfully sued a number of times, claiming defamation? Then add something about it being difficult to prove defamation when one is a public figure.

Barrett's lawyers' arguments were not just naive. They would have flunked first year torts. I couldn't believe what I read. I have mixed feelings about Barrett. I am no fan of many, or even most, 'alternative' treatments - I yawn and groan when I hear about magnetic bracelets, "spiritual" cures, homeopathy yada yada. However, I wonder if Barret's wrath extends to more than that - including making judgments as to whether medications or devices are safe (or harmful), and on anything that is promoted by US doctors /pharmaceuticals/manufacturers. I honesty don't know. I do know that after my experience with some doctors here in the US and seeing what can pass for a "body of studies" in plastic surgery journals, I question "traditional medicine" nearly as much as I question alternative med. I have only recently begun to have more doubts about how "true" "science" can be - especially when studies are funded and reviewed by those with financial interests in the product and then quoted as gospel.Jance 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not being attacked. Stop censoring my posts. You are hiding behind an alias and are attempting to expunge evidence about the NCAHF and other Barrett operations that you do not want the public to see. Your POV and bias is overwhelming and against the rules of Wikipedia. (uncivil link removed by Ronz) Ilena 18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

Sorry about removing the link. You're still promoting your webpage in violation of WP:SIG, so I've gotten used to cleaning up after you. That one should have stayed.

As for the rest of your comments, I'm not hiding behind anything, and I find your accusations uncivil, even offensive when repeated over and over as you do. I have removed no evidence, and I don't appreciate that accusation either. I suggest you read WP:POVPUSH before making any accusations about it. If I'm promoting a POV stop with the accusations and present some actual evidence.

Finally, you're constantly assuming bad faith on my part. I don't appreciate that either. --Ronz 19:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a Wikipedia talk page is considered a reliable resource, and that's the problem. WP:Reliable sources. If there is another court decision, or any published response that was verifiable, I have no problem with it. Do you think there might be something somewhere else? These two court decisions are pretty clear. The appellate decision affirms the trial decision. I will read it again, though, and look at the discussion above more closely.

I find this interesting because of the legal issues raised. However, a lot of the lawsuits fired by Barrett do seem abusive on their face. Going around the country filing frivolous lawsuits, which evidently is what happened, seems like a collossal abuse of process. If Dr. Barrett wants to change the law, then lobbying Congress would be the appropriate forum, not a court. I do not understand how anyone could support this, regardless of what they believe about alternative medicine. For example, I personally think homeopathy is a lot of hooey, but I wouldn't go file a lawsuit, and clog already clogged courts. I would start lobbying Congress. Jance 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I mostly wanted you to be aware. I agree about the lawsuits. As for lobbying, I think that an information campaign that could eventually lead to lobbying would be appropriate. --Ronz 19:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fyslee immediately reverted it. I am not going to get into an edit war. However, these comments do not meet Wikipedia standards for reliable resources and should not be included. An information campaign would be a good thing, and then the issues can be aired in a proper forum. I find it ironic that Barrett is a favorite of doctor lobbying groups who quote him, in their complaints about too many "frivolous" lawsuits. Um...Jance 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, where are those, do you know? And how do we know that is Barrett on the talk page? I just haven't seen this done on wikipedia before.Jance 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted it once more - and asked that Fyslee show us where that provision is. I won't quibble then about including it. Without a specific Wiki policy on this type of thing, inclusion of talk page as reference is extremely suspect. Surely Barrett could have published something about these cases, where he defends himself.Jance 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

138.40.1.9 is almost certainly Aaliyah Stevens, who appears to be a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the United Kingdom, a terrorist organization. KazakhPol 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with anything? I don't understand. --Ronz 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You recently warned this anonymous user for vandalism. Someone else suggested the anonymous user get an account. Since you warned him previously I'm alerting you in case you have a future interaction with this user. Is this clear now? I should have been more specific, sorry, KazakhPol 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. It was a minor bit of vandalism on his part and he's not touched the same page since. --Ronz 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my page, and you are most welcome. I agree, its pretty bad - on all sides, really. I have seen worse, though, in the short time I have been on Wiki..

And thus I have learned not to rely on information presented here...but Wikipedia can be a good beginning. I have admonished my daughter for using WIkipedia as a source in a college paper.

Unfortunately it is easy to get sucked into Wikipedia and spend a great deal of time better spent elsewhere. I have spent way too much time today on this! Jance 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However, that doesn't provide any reason for allowing Barrett's response to the court. Nothing in WP:BIO would permit this... I think we need to be careful to include only reliable resources - that means not including Barrett's response, but it also means axing some of the negative quotes, as well, which seem to have nothing supporting them but someone's websiite. Jance 00:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your comment is stretching things a little - ascribing motive or bias to editors does not serve much purpose. Better to focus on writing a good article with reliable resources, don't you think?Jance 01:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we are past that, aren't we? Or is there something I am missing? I think all have now agreed that the Barrett comment should not be included, for lack of RR. So is it time to move on to the litany of quotes in the "Accusation of Bias" section? Jance 02:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some research on some of the targets of Barrett - at least, Hulda Clark. From all I can tell, she is every bit the quack described by Barrett. I have no great expertise in homeopathy, but I doubt its efficacy. Nonethless, there seems to be some FDA regulation supporting those 'medications'. What is unfortunate is that Barrett has chosen to go after some of the 'alternative' companies without any evidence or proof to support his lawsuit. The court rightfully granted a directed verdict there - and pointed out that Barrett can not be considered an expert in these areas. While Barrett was not 'de-certified' as some alleged, he did retire in 1993, and has no documentation of continuing education, nor does he have advanced degrees in the areas he claimed to be an expert. It is my feeling that this should be the criticism of his methods - and not a litany of unreliable personal websites by those Barrett criticized.Jance 06:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Technology lifecycle Anthony Cimino Promotion (marketing) Design education Great Pyramid of Cholula Consumer behaviour Bruce Tognazzini Use-centered design Bump mapping Opinion leadership Marimekko Modeless Bill Moggridge Ease of use Pricing strategies Participatory design Visual communication Anti-Mac Ben Shneiderman

Cleanup Pricing Expert system E-marketing Merge Knowledge visualization Offshoring Growth-share matrix Add Sources Applied art 3D projection Kenneth Grange Wikify Executive information system Management accounting Transworld Snowboarding Expand Mfx Direct manipulation interface War photography

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

With what are we in disagreement? I agree that that a personal web page is poorly sourced. Because of the nature of Barrett's notability, it makes sense to have a paragraph discussing the disagreement (similar to the article you mentioned). The links - as links - may then be allowed, without including the quote in the text. I believe that is similar to what the other article did, but I would have to look more closely.. But there is where we can look for parallels, I suspect. It should come down to the verifiability of the material and the type of original source, if that is the case. Here, the original source is a personal website. Not verifiable, unless that person is unusually famous, as is Barrett. My only comment was that the subject here is rather unusual - and I think the parallel of Amazing Randi is apt. Why don't we use examples from there, or see if we can find anything coparable to here? Jance 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(Discussion moved to Talk:Jance) --Ronz 02:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear User:SoLongBaby is not trying to discuss his (her?) blanking edits any longer.

However, I'm remembering another case I was involved with, which has some similarities. Specifically, that case, like this one, involved a user who periodically came in and blanked sections in total disregard to the talk page. The blanking was immediately reverted, and after a period of days or weeks the user would come in again to blank the section again. The user seemed to have a good-faith reason for the removals despite the lack of good-faith discussion. Although I was initially in favor of blocking in that case, what turned out to work was to ignore and revert.

I think this will be the best course of action in this case too. There are really only two options: ignore-and-revert, or long-term-block. I'm not sure the block is even allowable per WP:BP, but even if it were, it seems ignore-and-revert would be plenty effective and much less heavy-handed, not to mention not likely to involve big stinky messes on WP:ANI. What do you think? --Ginkgo100 ^talk 05:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's a third option. --Ronz 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the editor is continuing to be disruptive, or edit warring, report him to AN/I as Wsiegmund did here. If he/she is violating the three revert rule, then post the diffs at the 3RR noticeboard. You can also ask for page protection if there is an edit war over the issue.--MONGO 06:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz. I am tired, and probably short-fused. It is rather infuriating to be told material is unsourced, when I went to great length to provide proper citations. I didn't like the websites that contatined the opinion, because I thought they were biased.Jance 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We need help on NCAHF. Curtis is reproducing (badly, I might add) entire webpages. I have summarized and added proper formating. I have asked him what specific points that are important that are left out of summary. He is not willing to discuss this. He is belligerant, and an edit war has ensued. I need the help of some rational editors here.Jance 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis is now following me and vandalizing other articles. At this point, it is vandalism.Jance 00:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

Sorry to bother you, but I'm concerned about Ilena Rosenthal smearing my name on the Barrett v Rosenthal talk pages. What is the procedure to have my name removed from the talk pages and also removed from the archives of the talk pages? I am not a party to any of her lawsuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barrett_v._Rosenthal

Thanks for any help you can offer.

Response on your Talk page. --Ronz 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is who I think it is, I believe he has every right to complain the exposure of his name on talk pages.Jance 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I don't think "we excuse your first 300+ edits, Ilena, because you were so angry" has played itself out yet. Maybe she'll behave from now on, but someone needs to clean up her prior damage. --Ronz 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. I deleted the name on the talk page , but that won't affect the history. Jance 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No Problems at all. Pretty much anytime you need to bring something to the attention of the admins, you can drop by WP:AN and choose a section. IRC is also great, because there are literally hundreds of people (incl many admins) in #wikipedia. Let me know if you need anything else :) — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 02:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at what he last wrote to you on the NCAHF talkpage. Maybe I will sit back and let him attack you for ahwile.  ;-)

Your disagreement is noted. Do you have any facts or details to support/articulate your disagreement or is this just a case of "because you said so"? I made my position clear and I invite you to do the same. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it? I suspect he now thinks you are also plotting against Dr. Barrett. I wonder what Dr. Barrett would think of this "defense" of his work. Jance 03:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Now he is calling me dangerous. I changed the one sentence Curtis references back to suit what he wanted - nonetheless, he has harped on since, in continued attacks. (The sentence was my initial paraphrasing, saying "toxic" instead of what Barrett wrote "hazardous". Sigh. It is a distinction without a real difference, in context. But I had no problem changing it to what Curtis wanted. Jance 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you take a look at my proposed summaries on NCAHF, and provide input? I do think that we are going to need a number of editors weighing in and building a good consensus, and even then we may not be able to reign in Curtis. I do know that I have spent most of a day on this. Jance 04:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we can get them in and move on with little if any more drama. --Ronz 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to delete my last comment, as soon as I posted it, because I immediately realized that it would create another war with Curtis. (He did not ask that I be banned/ yes he did/ ok blocked not banned/ ad nauseum). Unfortunately, Curtis beat me to it, to start another battle. Yikes. So, Ronz, would you do the honors of inserting the text and fixing this article? I'll help with the references, which are in history. I am completely wiped out today. I wrote a pleading (real work) and then spent the rest of the day on this. Thanks.Jance 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it, though not right away. I think it can wait a bit. --Ronz 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you Sir. Jance 05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)