to mickwest i found your last post rather inaccurate here is what i exactly said i am not interested in viewing your best wikipedia articles where unscholarly irrational exhuberance runs amok with non attribution gay abandon if i want to read such material i can go to the super market and read the national enquirer in short your best wikipedia articles are not necessarily the true best wikipedia articles and again sticking to wikipedia rules will produce an exemplary wikipedia bsf article so far nobody has stated why this is not so and i believe they never will i think wikipedia knows how good wikipedia articles are written kdbuffalo