"* - January 2006 
 * - February 2006 

 ==University of Miami criticism section== 
 Thanks for helping with the deletion of my post earlier.  However, the issue does not seem to be resolving itself. I posted a clear evaluation of the reasoning behind the changing the section, and after waiting five days with no response I changed the criticism section.  The edit that is involved is simply citing a source, and clarifying a statement (or so I feel).  

 To clarify: 
 I very much feel that the two individuals involved want to give a certain perception of the group on campus.  Specifically, that the group is small.  A qoute from the president of the university (to whom the campaign is directed- not exactly a nuetral observer) is not cited as the source of the qoute, but rather simply put that ""the group is [considered small]"". Am I wrong to think that a source should be refrenced to its actually author?  

 The other change involves refrenceing what the ""union process"" means.  Its really vague why the president of the univerisity feels she has to be nuetral on ""the union process"" when there is no refrence to who or what that process is in refrence to.  Not somthing i feel strongly about, but i think we should worry about the clarity of the article. 

 One other change was that both student gov and faculty senate voted on a resolution to a living wage"".  I cited my source in the discussion (the campus newspaper), its wholly accurate, and it only adds a few words- and certainly is relevant in terms of how the student body felt and perceived the issue.   

 I can't imagine how these details could be that serious for these two individuals, and maybe I'm wrong about them.  Nontheless, i feel at this point in time (considering they changed it without discussion and addressing the issue) we may need to be refrenced to arbitration.  Can you add to the discussion what you think, as a nuetral observer? (review the previous descussion for a few posts, and the changes that were made, perhaps).  I would greatly appreciate it if it helps us reach a resolution.   

 ==MLK Edit== 
 Will, 
 I was trying to reword something in the paragraph, and I lost some words where I placed black. I am sorry for the error. I didn't realize about the reasons for edit box was required, and I don't know where it is.   

 ==Usenet== 
 I'm sorry for butting in but you just deleted just about every single thing I edited. Please try to be more collaborative and friendly. Usenet isn't reliable for outside information but that's not what I linked to Usenet for at all. All of the things I described with Simpson and Epperson are about events that happened on Usenet itself with Sebesta. All three of them post there all the time. Simpson and Epperson are always criticizing Sebesta, and Sebesta always uses Usenet to do his political campaigning. He is rather (in)famous for all the stuff he does on Usenet. You can even email Sebesta, Epperson, or Simpson and they'll tell ya the same stuff. 

 :Be that as it may, you used the Usenet as the reference. The Usenet is not reliable, nor do we know that those who claim to be certain people are actually those people. -  

  
 Epperson and Simpson post on soc.history.war.us-civil-war  This is a moderater-controlled Usenet group (Epperson is one of the moderaters) so you can verify who their postings are. They block impersonaters to the non-moderated ones, and all the posts I gave match the UNIQUE logins and isp's used by Simpson and Epperson on their moderated group. 

 :Let's discuss this on the article's talk page, Talk:Edward H. Sebesta. I'll move your comment over there. And please don't forget to sign your comments. Thanks, -  

 == dab == 

 You signed dab's rfc twice. —    

 ==Editing protected pages== 
 I just mentioned the articles on the Lolicon talk page in case someone was interested. I only thought about putting them in seriously when I got curious as to policy on admins editing locked pages. I've never been there before and the policy doesn't specifically say you can't. I just wanted to get a buzz on what others thought.    

 :Yea, I read that, thanks. It says not to make substantial changes. It kinda leaves minor changes out, as if they are differed to judgement. It's not really a big deal; I'd just hate to make a minor change to a locked page and have the ""locker"" admin get miffed. I guess if it's a minor change, it can