==Kilogram and Gene (*sigh*)== 
 I got your message on my talk page. I was baffled as to why  got blocked for a week because I couldn’t immediately find any disruptive behavior after I started looking at his contributions history. Finally, I realized that this choice rant/objection on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents really snowballed on him—and entirely on autopilot too; he didn’t chime in once after it started snowballing. I didn’t know all that was going on. The Eddie Haskell in me finds some measure of satisfaction in this but the Ward Cleaver in me is really disappointed that the block was due to “lipping off” to administrators that was interpreted as a lack of contrition. Instead, it should have been over the “real” issue: how G*d d*amned disruptive he’s been lately. I remember when I was first working on Thermodynamic temperature and he corrected me numerous times. I remembered him as 1) being intolerant, and 2) always correct. I always figured him as the prototypical sort that is often described as “not suffering fools easily” and tried not to be a fool when he was lurking about. I can see from his block log that most of his offensive behavior has been a rather recent phenomenon. He seems to have changed and that’s too bad. I was truly rather disappointed in him because his way-off-base battle over “weight” didn’t match the Gene I remembered. 

 As for your advise that I should wait “for him to return before going anywhere substantial with the article”, I understand your point and why you felt the need to pass along the caution. I can assure you that I have zero intention to try to take advantage of the situation. I noticed this allegation by an administrator on “The Gene topic” on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that I “baited Gene.” I was tempted to object to that in an open forum and then thought the better of it given what happened to Gene. But that administrator’s allegation is 100%, industrial-strength “El toro poo poo” (Bol mierda). The only edits I make are good-faith ones. Period. I did note that after I made an edit, Gene reverted it here along with the threat that “…if Greg L insists on changing this, "dubious" tag goes back on.”  Of course, I waited until Gene was no longer blocked before making any changes and was frankly surprised that Gene would have objected to that particular one because the difference was over a subtlety and was factually unassailable. But after he objected to it—and even after he threatened to again slap the article with {{disputed}} tags, one can’t cave in the face of “Wiki-terrorism” threats; he really went overboard with that comment so I simply ignored it. Gene obviously had sufficient judgment to not carry through with the threat. Those three edits are what I think the administrator may have tarred and feathered with his “bait” allegation. I understand it would be highly inappropriate to purposely exploit the current situation (Gene being blocked for a week). I also know that at some point, I have to treat the whole “Gene thing” as just another bug splat on my windshield of life and get on with doing the right thing: making good-faith edits and having fun as a volunteer on a collaborative writing phenomenon. But I’ll also be careful to not do any edits that might be interpreted as intentionally provocative. 

 Again, thanks for your time and attention on this matter.   (''''