"

I am new to this format and you can check and see that I only recently joined a few days ago. I do not operate under any other name or account, and your suggestion that I have is unfounded and offensive. If I have violated your Wiki rules I apologize. I was made aware by an outside source of the page recently, and merely selected the review history option to see what had been done and by whom. I did in fact make all my comments via the TALK section, and never received and answer as to why Doc James was so consistent in his posting misinformation and taking information out of context.  Your organization calls that vandalism according to your own documentation.  His response to me was to attack and impune my character. My response was to question his ethics, which are still in question and remain unanswered. If this is not an ethical issue than it is one of competence and that raises quality control issues within the Wiki community and why when questioned the response is to exclude rather than explain.  This is all about education isn't it? I only entered into this site to make sure that the truth was preserved. What is wrong or misplaced with questioning errors? What is misplaced is the ability of the person who is questioned, in your words ""even if he was completely wrong in his edits"", to not come clean and fix the issue and admit the wrongdoing or mistake vs. attacking someone who actually was trying to make sure the information in Wiki was correct. I understand that this is a circling of the wagons to protect Doc James, and that I have no power or standing.  So be it. But who will protect the innocent when the wolf is in the hen(WIKI)house? With respect and understanding...  "