first of all sarekofvulcan still did not get back to me to disscus civilized instead notarealword added some non sense it seems that this is your style how many editors keep moving around replying to me anyway i cannot believe my eyes reading what notarealword just wrote above notarealword said quote what do you mean the statement about their clean award is cited are you for real or you want to insult my users intelligence what you have another set of policies about reliable sources and self promotion means who made that statement about clean award can you answer me sarekofvulcan my feeling is that the guy from softpedia entered that what a reliable source secondly what does it means clean awared is this award given by a reliable verifiable source body entity maybe golden globes no that comes from the same reliable source softpedia and r this is proof that amoung this team of editors that are against me are some like notarealword which is sarek here is another personal attack according to your definition or in a hurry to close my mouth or just incompetent here is my proof notarealword said the statement about their clean award is cited and read what is on the page programs which are also freeware or open source are given softpedia's free award non primary source needed where is your non primary source sarek and wikipedia and david biddulph david added this fault pas in notarealword's name regarding the nd point that i did not insert a name of a reliable source we debated that i inserted more sources but none is for you guys i will start to differentiate between you editors and wikipedia in my naivet i still want to believe that how you act is not actually wikipedia's way to work a reliable one conclusion my belief is that i cannot pinpoint or and there is a matter of incompetence from the editor's part some wikipedia softpedia interests or just a vendetta i still hope to hear from you sarek to discuss this points civilized i think i am doing my part buy you don t do yours picard out