# User talk:MacGyverMagic/Archive 9

## glycosylation vs glycation: a humble request

Do you know we have both articles? I don't quite understand the difference between glycosylation and glycation and have a suspicion that there isn't much and they could probably be usefully combined or at least cross-referenced. If you have some interest and expertise in this relatively narrow topic (not that it isnt just as interesting as HPL and EAP), I-- and perhaps hundreds of others, who knows?-- would be grateful if you could merge the two articles or else write a brief explanation of the difference between glycation and glycosylation and cross-link them appropriately. Chemistry is good. alteripse 15:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Cricket pages

There are articles for each team and competition, and also chronological articles covering everything. Therefore the same write-up of a match could appear in 4 different articles - 2 team articles, a competition article and a chronological article. As far as I'm aware transclusion is the most effective way of doing this. Kind regards, jguk 22:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Mediation

Hi, Mgm. No problem – do you think I was sufficiently effusive? Cheers, smoddy 22:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was a certain level of irony in the above statement. :p smoddy 22:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Register account first

Then i will lose my contributions list and watch list. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:56, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

## Mediation Cabal

Hi! I've been sort of holding the mediation line with a Mediation Cabal for a little while now. People interested in helping out watch the page and swarm to locations where there is possible trouble, supplying immediate first-aid, and trying to solve the situation, should rapid response not be sufficient, then further stages of dispute resolution are tried.

That's the idea anyway. In reality some of our longer standing or open cases are indeed on the mediation cabal page, but often enough we just pick stuff up via irc/watchlist/rc patrol whatever, and solve problems upfront before things get worse. So most of our work never shows up on the wiki.

Anyway, feel free to watch that page, help out, or better yet declare the mediation cabal obsolete so I can go do something else with my life ;-) (I wish! :-P )

Ah well, we'll probably still have to wait a little while before we can declare it obsolete, or convert it into a better organised emergency response team.

Anyway, since you seem to want to try and pick up the original mediation, that's great! Note that Wgfinley and Inter have already been doing some basic groundwork. Listen to them carefully!

Hope to hear from you (and the resurrected mediation committee) soon!

Kim Bruning 00:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Mr Tan

I had thought about mediation, but (as the RfC, and the various Talk pages indicate), this is neither just about Mr Tan and me nor about just one article. Moreover, a number of people have tried to reason with Mr Tan, and he refuses to listen to any of them. As I said on the Noticeboard, I'd be grateful for any attempt to get through to him, but I'm now starting on the Arbitration route. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. I have tried mediating between them for the longest time, but Tan just won't accept the fact that (for the ${\displaystyle 10^{3}}$ time) his English is far below the level of other, more experienced editors, and that he cannot therefore judge the state of an article. He's been putting a copyedit template on Zanskar because "it doesn't match his style"; his edits on other articles (such as Tsushima Islands, Wee Kim Wee) are quite controversial, and, most importantly, he does not let other editors gauge the quality of his work or correct his mistakes. Nor does he accept any kind of advice, from fellow editors or Singaporeans. JMBell° 11:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did. But why did I find much more difficulty in associating with him than to others? You are accusing me of me not accepting the fact that my English is poor, but I did many a times, especially in Talk:Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Tan 12:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tan

• I'll have to stop you all here. If you're willing to go into mediation do so. I have nothing to do with arbitration and as the notice on top of this page says, disputes are to be resolved on the appropriate pages -not here. Mgm|(talk) 12:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

## Mediation reforms

If you haven't already done so (and I've not spotted it), would you like to create a page outlining your ideas for reform of the MC? I'd like to join such discussions, but see no central place to do so. Dan100 11:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation (2005) Kim Bruning 13:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the balls in your court now really - your ideas are good, you need to move things on to the next stage now. This is a golden opportunity! Dan100 11:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

## Re: Furry / Furry fandom mediation request

Hi, thanks for the reply, and sorry for my carelessness. I had hoped that by making a request it would ease the tension regarding the issue and that the User:Almafeta would be willing for a third party mediator too, but it looks like the situation (at Talk:Furry) has gone - as I feared - genuinely out of hand. The anonymous user and Contie appear to have calmed down, but Almafeta is now personally attacking the user:Krishva, tracking down her activities, and accusing not only she is trying to "delete every single Furry-related page on wikipedia" and that I, Krishva and user:Stiv are the same user (it's very hard to be in America and Malaysia simultaneously). I've asked for user:Almafeta to agree to the mediation a few minutes ago, and I'm loath to request arbitration as that would be the last resort. What do you advise in this situation? Thanks! -- Grumpyhan 12:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Re: Template

For an explanation on how I visioned it, see User:Inter/Mediation policy. See [[Wikipedia:Mediation (2005) and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal on how it turned out. :> I am currently on exam leave still, things to sort out and stuff, but when I am fully back I will resume the work to change the medcom into something else (or remove it) as it is currently inactive and inefficient. Hope this answers the question. Inter\Echo 14:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It didn't really fail, it just hasn't been done alot with because of people working on it, like myself, have had our exams. I haven't fully returned to Wikipedia after that onslaught so I'm not fully up to speed yet. I saw your proposal at the ArbCom RFC and I will make a comment there probably. Some of us have worked quite hard for something that didn't really come into frutition because we aren't sure if we wanted to throw out the MedCom altogether or restore it. It is a drastic measure, but since you have taken the initiative, I'll be happy to assist as I have talked with many people about a change to MedCom and have come up with some preliminary guidelines. Inter\Echo 19:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Sorry

I posted a message on user's discussion page , so whats wrong with that ? Farhansher 20:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Houston Chronicle

Thank you for offering mediation. If you think it can accomplish something then I won't object to your assistance. I remain dubious that Katefan0 will contribute productively to this process, having tried repeatedly to find grounds for agreement with her to little success. I believe I have been reasonably flexible to date in accomodating some of her requests and the requests of others, but the remaining issues that I outlined on the mediation page have seemingly come to a standstill.

If it helps any for background on this dispute, my own perspective is one that is critical of the Houston Chronicle, though I've attempted at all stages to thoroughly source and document the critical material. Katefan by contrast has a very strong POV in favor of the Chronicle - she claims she used to be employed with them even - but unfortunately does not seem to recognize that she writes with a bias of her own. Hence she sees everything I do - no matter how thoroughly sourced it is - as "unfair" or "biased" and POV while everything she adds has the effect of making it "neutral" even though in fact most of her changes insert strong biases in the other direction.

The dispute to date has had a couple other participants as well. Based on his edits and comments on the discussion page, User:Nobs seems to favor my side of the argument over Katefan0's. User:Johntex tends to favor Katefan & was specifically recruited by her to lend favor to her arguments. She also recruited User:Willmcw into the discussion, apparently knowing that I have sparred (albeit on mostly friendly terms) with him in the past on other articles. Given this it is also my belief that Willmcw has little genuine interest in the subject matter of this article (as well as virtually zero familiarity with any of the issues of contention) and is only attracted to it because of me. He has a bad habit of following myself and some other editors around wikipedia trying to cause trouble or undo additions we've made to various articles regardless of the subject. IOW, virtually every single time I've gotten into a conflict with another editor on wikipedia about an article's content on any issue whatsoever Willmcw's shown up in short order to espouse the side of the other guy. Normally he either misreads one of the existing sources on the article and changes the article to reflect his misreading, only to be corrected and concede the error, or he tries to make edits that make for awkward article texts such as removing acknowledged and self-evident facts, e.g. "the sky is blue," for want of a "source" (and then only a source of his liking) specifically stating that the sky is indeed blue. It's largely deconstructive and normally accomplishes nothing for the article that doesn't get restored in short order. In most of his edits on the Houston Chronicle, this seems to be another such case of what I just described. Anyway, that more or less summarizes things to date & if you have any questions or suggestions I'd be happy to hear them. Thanks. Rangerdude 22:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Mgml, in response to your proposals, I am glad to agree. Here's to an eventual resolution. I do have one concern -- there have been several other editors who have been engaged in the disagreement on various sides, primarily (User:Nobs, User:Johntex and User:Willmcw); would the editing hiatus also apply to them? Happy Friday · Katefan0(scribble) 18:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Don't mind at all if it's a public talk page. Probably easier to keep track of things that way anyway. Thanks again. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Please note that Nobs, who I mentioned above, also edits under User:Nobs01, which he's been using today. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:15, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

## Re:User:Grutness/Grutness non-article

Thanks for keeping watch for vandalism over my pages, but in this case...

I find it hilarious that I write an article about myself as part of my user pages (not as an article in Wikipedia), and it was suggested it lacks sources. Note the edit summary comment that "the quote from my cats needs sourcing"! It's a fun addition, and I don't mind it - punctures any ego build-up nicely too.

FWIW, I only wrote the page there after realising (on vfd) that I met many of the notability standards which are used to judge vfd candidates. I did it as an exercise, and have no intention of putting it in the Wikipedia article space. I am mentioned by name in one Wikipedia article (University Challenge (New Zealand)), but there's no redlink, nor do I think there should be. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## A few more newbie questions

I've been poking about, learning more, editing here and there, having fun. However, I have three questions that remain unanswered. I'd appreciate any info you can provide.

1) What is the policy for removing a cleanup or other template after you've finished an edit?

2) Aren't the cleanup templates supposed to go on the respective talk pages, not on the article itself?

3) Why are the only dated cleanups for September 2004 and May 2005?

Thanks in advance, Jekoko 20:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, you are one prompt person!

Thanks for clearing up my questions. The search I did for "CleanupDate" only gave me May 2005, not all the rest. I figured I had to be missing the rest of the year somewhere. They are all at the top of the WP:CU page you directed me to. :) Many thanks! Jekoko 20:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Mediation

To quote Ed Poor:

If you DON'T leave a message at my talk page or send me an e-mail, Then I am NOT going to take on a Mediation. I want the "chairman" or whatever we call him or her to assign cases. I'm not going to volunteer.

Andre (talk) 00:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Mgm, in case you missed my message above (apologies for posting twice if you did not!):

I think the balls in your court now really - your ideas are good, you need to move things on to the next stage now. This is a golden opportunity! Dan100 11:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

And if you have another look at the MC page, you'll see that your clear to become Chair :-) Dan100 09:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

## My FPC

Thanks for your comments at the FPC page on the Medal of Honor flag. I am writing to you since you provided mostly constructive criticism on my nomination of the image. I asked before if flag images could be nominated, and I got a response saying it could, but it will be tough. The user based it on a coat of arms image that failed to be featured. I thought I give my image a shot, and well, I know that I will lose this one. I will try better next time, unless the main objection is that it is just a drawing. If so, that is what is killing me. The image, though I drew it, technically is PD-USGov, since it is an image of a flag issued by the US Government. It was going to be used at two articles, but the Medal of Honor flag article was merged to the original Medal of Honor article. Plus, the image is at the Commons, so it clears that hurdle. Though I wish to stop ranting now, thanks again for the kind remarks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Mediation request

Hi Mgm, thanks for your note. I don't believe that mediation would be appropriate in this case (and I also thought there was no mediation committee at present). The editor seeking it is User:Baxter2, also editing as User:Baxter3, and User:68.10.35.153. He's almost certainly Bill White, the subject of the vanity piece he created at Bill White (activist). I haven't looked at the page today, and so I don't know whether he's reverted to his old version, but if you read the introduction of my last version, you'll see who he is. In brief, White is a far-right, anti-Semitic activist, associated with Stormfront and a number of other white-supremacist groups, and he wants to exercise editorial control over his WP entry. In particular, he wants to use the page as a repository for over 100 article titles he says are about him (though many are not); and he's linking to the WP article on his own website, calling the WP article "The Bill White Article Collection". He's being opposed by several editors on the page; the only one supporting him when I last checked was Sam Spade. The aim is to re-write the page so that it's fully sourced, which will take a couple of days. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to address the removal of what he's calling sources. I'm not aware of his having provided sources for anything. When I first looked the article, it was entirely unsourced, except for this very long list of articles at the end, not linked to, and not identified as references or sources; and many of them had nothing to do with him. So either he doesn't understand what a source is, or he's playing games. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I saw this matter on User:SlimVirgin's page. I was the editor who first complained about the lack of sources for this extensive, detailed, and favorable biography. The response was 100 sources, most of which are newspaper mentions that not available via internet. This editor has been aggressive in dealing with editors who do not share his POV. In his short editing career he has issued numerous threats and complaints: on talk pages, VfDs, and on White's website. He has created a number of articles about associates of White's, which were initially unsourced and without indication of notability. When I nominated a few of them for VfD the editor in question responded immediately by attacking my motives. (He later added more information and sources, some of which appear to be unsupportive). All of which is to say that this is not just a two-editor dispute. If there is mediation as well then I would like to be a part of it. However this may be more of an "RfC" situation (which is what we've done for the article). It seems precipitous to call for mediation after only a couple of days of editing, just on the basis of an experienced editor removing an extraordinarily long list of references. Of course your involvement is welcome in any capacity. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

MGM- here are some diffs and a link to a new essay/blog by White. I don't want to overplay these threats - they're certainly mild and/or indirect. My point concerned how rapidly the editor started making threats and complaints. I agree that small-"m" mediation is best as early as possible. Capital-"M" Mediation is different, in my mind. Cheers,

## krill

hallo mgm! thank you for your responses and time. Sometimes the art is to make information short, with pointing to larger volumes. Where are the rules how much media should be used in a wikipedia article? Space is on the harddrives enough. "An image says more than a thousand words". The article was once longer - I could have easily dumped text from scripts I still have from the times I lectured at the universities about krill or pasted from the 150 pages from articles with my students given at wikisource, but we wanted to keep it here condensed. The images and animations are considered as additional already, nobody is forced to scroll down on the page - as far as we know, the upper part of the page is formatted ok - otherwise please help us - keep up with your fine work and hallo to the Netherlands (I am from Flensburg) and good luck with your chemistry studies Uwe Kils 15:00, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Guten Tag mgm! Danke für den Kommentar - in Allem ist persönlicher Geschmack - und wir können alles diskutieren, über alle Grenzen und Alter hinweg - ich werde Eure Hinweise hier besprechen. Ich hab schon etwas mehr Text hineingetan. Ist ja auch nur ein Versuch, und Diskussion ist immer gut - viele herzliche Grüsse über den Atlantik Uwe Kils 22:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Please note that most Dutchmen don't speak German particularly well. German and Dutch languages are related, but not enough for it to be mutually understandable. Mgm|(talk) 04:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
sorry - but you have on your user page a tab that you do speak German - was not so important anyway, I just tried to be friendly and cooperative - I contribute much more n the Englishserverside than on the German, but I note what you wrote Uwe Kils 12:06, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

## German

Don't worry about it. I do understand German myself, but I prefer English or Dutch communication. So you don't need to talk German unless it's easier for yourself. Mgm|(talk) 12:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

thank you, I was invited into the USA because our works on the hatching web, so I do speak some English - would you be willing to serve as student on a board for our Virtual_University proposals? We plan it to be within wikipedia (priority if wanted) or as fork in wikinfo or a new wiki forking off Uwe Kils 13:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
can you protect for us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_krill/ice for a demo please Uwe Kils 14:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
thank you, that is ok with us. We changed it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kils/Antarctic_krill/frozen can you protect that please Uwe Kils 18:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

## Houston Chronicle Mediation

I've heard you were involved in a content dispute on this page, so I'm asking you if you'd be willing to talk about your views on the matter to help mediation. Please indicate if you are willing to do so and promise the follow these rules.

1. You won't edit the article while mediation is ongoing. Suspected sockpuppeting should be reported to me personally for investigation.
2. No comments aimed at the other party or their edits should contain loaded language that can be construed as offensive or otherwise hurtful.
3. Mediation should be done in good faith without regard for previous editing behavior.
4. Comments should be made about the other person's edits and not them as a person. If possible you should try to bring sources to the table which I can review.
5. If, somewhere along the way, you think there's a possibility to reach an agreement on any of the disputed points, let it be known as soon as you can.

Please respond on my talk page as soon as you can. -- Mgm|(talk) 18:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to participate in Mediation (capital "M" this time) if the other key editors participate too. Thanks for getting involved. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm somewhat agreeable to mediation with a couple caveats. I do not agree that the article should be closed from edits during mediation 'as long as 3RR violations and other "revert war" situations do not arise. Halting all edits entirely IMO constrains the use of the editing mechanism towards a working solution and restricts the debate to two stagnant previous versions. Furthermore, while I am open to outside or public participation in this dispute, I would prefer that it focus primarily upon the differences between myself and Katefan0 regarding the section in question. As I detailed to you previously, I have strong reasons to doubt the motives of certain participants in this particular dispute and believe that their immediate involvement would be generally deconstructive to any attempt at resolving the primary disputes between myself and Katefan. Thanks again. Rangerdude 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would prefer to have editors agree not to tinker with disputed sections in question while we work on an agreement in the talk pages. That's the standard way of proceeding with dispute resolution. Otherwise we'll just end up edit warring. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:02, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree. Wikipedia already has policies such as 3RR to inhibit edit wars. If these are violated then a basis for halting changes may exist, but so far they have been followed. Furthermore, I am of the belief that halting edits will restrict the discussion to two previous stagnant versions of the text. Since Katefan0 is espousing a fairly absolutist position that her version should be substituted in full, halting the editing process could restrict our options and unduly advantage that substitution. Rangerdude 14:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• That's what mediation is for. We can work toward a resolution in a talk page, modifying text until we both agree. There's no reason to, while we are working on disputed text, simply paste something into the live version that we all perhaps can't agree on. This seems imminently sensible to me. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't object to developing a working version in the mediation page. I simply don't see anything to be gained from restricting the regular page as well beyond what already exists under 3RR and other related "revert war" policies, which have not been an issue despite the dispute. I will voluntarily agree to keep my edits to existing texts to a minimum during mediation excepting extraordinary unforseen circumstances, but I do not believe a bar on edits should be firmly imposed for the reasons mentioned previously. Rangerdude 19:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this mediation going to happen or have some editors vetoed it? I see that the article is being very actively edited. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

## krill

Dear mgm, I addressed the objections that were raised, thank you very much for the advice - it would be nice if you would take another look at Antarctic krill - best greetings Uwe Kils 03:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

## Edit war on Zanskar

Hi Mgm, was wondering if you could do us a favor. Mr Tan is trying to copyedit Zanskar even though there is no problem with the article. I, along with another user, have tried to talk him out of this, showing that Zanskar has no apparent or immediate problems in grammar, spelling, or style, and also that this editing spree of his might only introduce errors into the document, as his previous edits on the article have proven. We suggested that he make a draft of his version, but he refused, saying that he saw the need for a draft unnecessary, and proceeded to put up the cleanup tag on the article. Moreover, he has not listened to our requests, and now is accusing us of not listening to his requests. To give him time to understand the situation, I have broken off communication with him until he can comprehend the situation. Alas, it seems that he is also ready to participate in an edit war:

"You want edit war? Go ahead."; "But if you do not co-operate, I have to indulge in an edit war, ..."

He wants to act like the Godhead here:

"We have already come to a stage where you have to obey me, not the reverse in this article."

We have, however, never forced him to do or not do anything. If you want a small sampling of his edits, I'll refer you here.

For the sake of our poor readers, I'd like this page to be protected. Thanks. JMBell° 15:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Some help with Mr Tan would be appreciated too, if you have the time and patience. :)

## User name

Hi Mgm! Thanks for your quick reply at Help desk. I'll really ask a developer if anything can be done as to this unfortunate name (Eleassar). But now I see that different developers have different accesses. Whom do you suggest me asking? If for example I asked Angela, do you think she would be able to help? Thanks and happy wiki-ing! --Eleassar my talk 20:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Zanskar

Firstly, I am here to thank you for your page protection. While I am already very angry for Bell treating me like a dirt on his last comment on Talk:Zanskar, I would be very grateful if you can give me your attention to let me elaborate on my reasons:

Although technically there is no problem with the grammar, I am not satisfied with the styling in contrast to average Wikipedia articles in retrospect to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles.

However, to my horror, they told me in "retaliation" by saying that it is perfect; so I ask if it is fit enough for Featured article candidate, but they did not respond. If you notice, much of the facts, didtantly related, are clumped into one, large, single paragraph which wasn't their style on copyediting Kinnaur.

I have also suggested a draft; but on consideration a draft may not work well because I am doing content restructuring. Coming to the reason of why I said that "We have already come to a stage where you have to obey me, not the reverse in this article.", I need their co-opeeration to let me do whatever I like to the article for the time being, because as you can see, both parties; while JMBell has suggested that I should not edit; I objected; and we fought.

So, I came to this conclusion that I need their co-operation for them to listen to me; not the reverse; otherwise everything will get stalled up, and this is what happened.

Also, as you can see, Bell stated that "And if you don't want to start an edit war, don't revise anymore. Fair warning again.". To me, this is a way that Bell is trying to threaten-dictate me, and I do not like that, for I myself already know that we have reached a stage where things can only work where I need their attention. However, I stated "You want edit war? Go ahead."; "But if you do not co-operate, I have to indulge in an edit war, ...", for I do not want the article to be in such a state. I really want things to work as they are, so I have to reassert them mentally, for I realise that have been forced to the only way out.

MGM, I would appreciate that we can go through a person-to-person discussion concerning Zanskar. Thanks.

Mr Tan 05:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

G'bye, everyone. And for the record, I am very particular about human rights and equal justice so what he's saying is rubbish. JMBell° 06:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You better shut up, Bell, for I am not a doll which you can treat me or scold me in anyway you like. I am serious on the article, and I want a civil discussion.

Mr Tan 11:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am very happy and grateful at your attitude in contrast to the article. However, I would like to inquire how should I give you the list of edits that I would like to made, for I apologise I do not know how to do it. Or I suggest a draft which is less troublesome---but I do not trust it for the intereptation level is lower but more convinent, which is the source of our poor misunderstandings--I am sorry for my comprehensive skills are not very good.

Or I directly edit on the page itself, without interruptions within a scheduled period of time and that was what I proposed to do. But Bell and Mel misinterpreted it as me trying to take control of the article, firmly stating that my English skills three months ago proved to be very poor. But a person three months ago need not necessarily be the same as of today!

Also, I would be very happy if you can fix a scheduled dateline somewhere within a week from now, for I really needs this batch of time to sort things out.

Mr Tan 12:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)