Talk:Computer science/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

disputed

History

The summary of the history sections does not seem based on actual history of computer science. Please revise with actual sources. — Dzonatas 12:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is. I'm sure some additional sources will be provided later. —Ruud 13:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is [under dispute]. It does not take in account when computer were people, for example, and it does not include why computer science even started. — Dzonatas 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The history of computer science article linked at the very beginning of that section addresses all of those concerns; if we were to include every fact from that article in this one, it would be impractically large, not to mention incredibly redundant and more difficult to maintain. --bmills 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We have tried to manage some complexity to this article. It obviously needs to address several point of views. Some users that can't multi-task views seem to prefer censorship. Its a solution but not the answer. I wouldn't hire a CS grad based on their novel kludge, which only works if people view it in "the right way." We can't expect everybody to have an academic background or even want one. People can be computer scientist without formal education in CS. That is how CS started. Why cover it and any traces of it up? — Dzonatas 03:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please look at comment under Protected regarding CS graduates. "We can't expect everybody to have an academic background or even want one." is a good point but the facts are in the open: it is incredible to be hired in the computer industry, or more appropriately, a university/research facility (since we are discussing about CS), without an academic background. CS started with people who were without such formal education because such education for CS did not exist then. Since its formalisation (which coincides with the creation of CS departments, separate from Math departments in universities), this is to be expected. There is no cover-up, in fact feel free to add instances where people contributed to CS with no formal education. I suggest quoting these instances in the current view of the present. Please be respectful and refrain from words like "novel kludge". I do not need to point you to Wikipedia's conduct page. -- ^Evanx 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your right.

I would like the respect that such conduct is not only noted on me, if it is noted at all, but also pointed out on others. If you look in the Protected, you'll see such conduct by others than me. It has to stop. Put down the stones. Enough said about conduct, yes?

CS is still knowledge that started nearly a century ago. It is really unknown exactly when it started because obviously the processes were used before computability itself was a focus. People did the work by hand until automation. In order to achieve automation, computability needed to be developed. Computability led into effective methods. Effective methods of that time presently do not describe a computation, but effective methods do describe construction and analysis of computational processes. We do not need formal CS to cut off the non academic root of CS. I am not against academic CS, as the entire academic CS does not view CS the same way. — Dzonatas 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but the current link to the history of CS appears sufficient. What changes do you suggest and how would you go about it? -- ^Evanx 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Theory and practice

This was an obvious original work to begin with. Why do the aspects of theory and practice need to be combined? I am sure that it can be improved with sources. — Dzonatas 12:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. —Ruud 13:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As discussed, but greatfully, the page is under protection. so let's discuss it more. — Dzonatas 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If by "original work" you mean "summary of information contained in other Wikipedia articles", then sure. But summaries aren't original research. You need only read the articles on computer engineering, information technology, information systems, and software engineering to get the information in that section. Isn't Wikipedia itself a source? --bmills 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't use itself as a source, but as long as the summarized article contains clearly-cited sources, it's not a problem. android79 18:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out, there is no problem here with the combination. Theory and practice is inter-related. When the content of theory and practice grows and requires an article by itself, there would be logical consideration in dealing with them separately (But its inter-relation might render it prohibitive). The current situation is amenable. -- ^Evanx 01:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

This was protected a month ago and it was successful. Trying again. Work it out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I Think it only needs protection from Dzontas, without him we could achieve concencus. His constant bickering and arrogance has been the sole root of our problems. -- Tompsci 20:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The above comment does not belong here as it does not focus on the article. — Dzonatas 02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I am unable to support Dzonatas's bid for editting an article that already serves its purpose. If an alternative cannot be formulated, I see no reason to change it. Evanx 23:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Definition in current (protected) version has plenty of sources (see above) and surrounding context specifically describes a diverse interpretation. --bmills 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On a closer look, the current version doesn't have a link to list of computer science fields, which it should (in keeping with the other non-field-specific CS lists linked in the protected version). Also, I'd kind of like to remove "information" from the definition, but I don't mind terribly if it stays. --bmills 00:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Addition of list. List of computer science fields should be added as pointed out by bmills. -- ^Evanx 01:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Although the article can be improved, it can also be made much worse. Having the article blocked for a while will prevent confused, erroneous and damaging edits by Dzonatas. --Powo 00:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Part of the above comment does not belong here as it does not focus on the article. — Dzonatas 02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Move: move current article to Theoretical computer science — Dzonatas 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've listed my reason above with the citations. I have the hunch the the auto-redirect of Theoretical computer science to this page has confused the definition. — Dzonatas 04:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. As a neutral third party I'd have to say that the original objections (and indeed most of the above dialogue) are somewhat silly semantics quibbles. I'd be impressed if you could even find ten people from different computer and IT industries that would agree on a definition for "computer science;" much less its history, theory, practice, etc. One person might say that "computer science" is divergent from computational mathematics, while the next could ardently insist that its roots are in electrical engineering. The truth of the matter, if there is such a simple thing, probably lies somewhere in the middle or nowhere at all. I won't be so brash as to support one claim over the other since I've watched both views (and others) be convincingly defended many times over the years. As it is, the term "computer science" is largely one that is used by academia. Commercial software development is most often called software engineering or just software development. I've never heard anybody outside academia refer to themselves as computer scientists or their profession as computer science. Furthermore, academia does nothing to clarify the matter since one school's definition and method of CS could differ by several orders of magnitude from that of the next.

So I've basically verbosely stated what the article already says (though its manner is terse and unconvincing). I'd tend to agree that the initial generalization the article makes about the nature of computer science is perhaps too bold, but I think it's a waste of time to debate over such a small amount of content. There should be significant expansion explaining the reasons why CS is a difficult term to strictly define, some of the field's diverse origins (for example, early mathematicians like Von Neumann are often thought of as pioneers of CS, and equally often dismissed as having anything to do with CS), and how all this ties together. I put the question to you; is a minor edit war over "what CS REALLY IS" and "these five words are unsourced" really worth more of your time and energy than authoring actual improvements and expansions to the text? Consider. -- uberpenguin 06:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have given up editing this article for this very reason, all of the users editing this page (except Dzontas) could agree on a broad definition which explained why computer science was hard to define and listed as examples many diverse fields which would be covered by a computer science course. Again Dzontas claimed that these fields were not CS, c.f. Bioinformatics, the field itself is CS, but it's application is not, a story which is true for many fields. -- Tompsci 08:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have me confused with someone else. When you try to put me in defense posture for something I never said, it is obvious that you and others have marked me as "the problem" like a social lynch mob. Many of you need to grow up. Stick to the article and the facts; Sir. — Dzonatas 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your the only one who seems to be unwilling to comprimise, you think you know what's best and won't take any else's opinion into account. That is why it *you* that needs to "get your facts straight", not anyone else. How about an experiment? Dzontas doesn't edit this page for 2 weeks, and we'll see if there are any major disputes still? -- Tompsci 14:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

WTF? I'm the one that requested the page protection on your preferred version. How is that not in any way or not in any manner a piece of a compromise or to effectuate it? Look closely at the history, every edit I made was undone. — Dzonatas 17:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A reason for that is that you did not have consensus agreement. That is what we are all trying to seek now. Work towards cooperation, not away from it. -- ^Evanx 19:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree with you (except one user). The trouble is the one user which will not agree with you will prevent the rest of the community going ahead by modifying every edit to implicitely push the POV that CS is (this is just a small sample): "the science that computes", "a science which started thousands years ago", claims that academic CS should be called theoretical CS, or claims that theoretical CS is not part of CS, etc...!--Powo 08:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Get the facts straight. Academic CS is a discipline that covers the science of CS and theoretical CS. It is science itself that does not allow aspects of TCS into mainstream CS. I wouldn't want any new gard that claims CS is only "the study of computation" to touch any of the systems that have proven computational processes to handle over billions of dollars, and I wouldn't want that new grad to use such system as a test ground to implement some new theory of computation. — Dzonatas 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have failed to notice, it appears that your own comments are not from a NPOV. I see no significant reason in denying new graduates in contributing to this article, so long as they are able to discuss and convince all, if not most of the community. Your very own preference that appears to stigmatise formal education methods and the "new" generation of computer graduates, are hurting your own argument in pursuing a clearer definition of this article. I do agree with some distinctions you have made regarding the science and theory of CS, but most sources attribute it to a study of computation. This has more to do with the manner and history of CS and its birth than with semantics. -- ^Evanx 15:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. I didn't deny anybody. Anways, let do a quick google: [1] computer science "study of computation". Fair? Only 861 matches. We'll need to dig deeper than that. Yes, its history is an important role. Perhaps you haven't seen any of my real POV, but American Association for Artificial Intelligence is one that backs it up such that CS is rooted in AI and they kind of swapped precedence over time. Notice how AAAI makes the statement that the core of computational intelligence is the study of computation. They further state the social science is a major aspect in CS. I agree, and perhaps this is where its seem like I denied anybody because of a social structure point. Many businesses used to get CS grads that could not do any decent social structure. They screamed they needed grads that actually knew english composition, for example. I see you have hinted at the same fact. Businesses don't want to hire non-CS grads not because of a lack of core CS expertise, but they don't because of a lack of a much more desired general education. — Dzonatas 22:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Academic CS covers science, theory, and software engineering, depending on the individual interests of the student. For example, I'm in a research master's program; I have friends pursuing master's degrees in software engineering and even "entertainment technology". Theoretical CS does work its way into actual CS — this is why Microsoft and Google and Bell all have their own research labs. Unix was the result of many years of theoretical research into programming languages, compilers, and operating systems, and many of the algorithms it uses have been very carefully studied; it has been used in industry for several decades. A graduate that has been taught formal algorithm analysis is likely to be able to take your billion-dollar system and make it significantly faster and more reliable, not through simple hacking but through improvements to the basic algorithms. A friend of mine graduated and went to a small company that makes compilers for embedded systems; last I knew he'd sped up his assigned project by 15% -- not using some "new theory of computation", but using optimizations that have been well-studied in academia but have largely gone unnoticed in industry. --bmills 16:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, back when I was doing research in industry, we called it "computer science", and "computer scientist" was what it said on my business card. Actual computer scientists have a pretty good idea of what they do all day, it's only the non-scientists who seem to be confused. Stan 12:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not great, a poster child for one of the weaknesses of WP, which is that stubborn eccentrics can singlehandedly wreck good articles, but if it needs to be protected forever to get Dzonatas to leave it alone, so be it. Stan 12:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Stan. —Ruud 20:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Pacroon 21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical computer science

I'm sure I'm going to regret doing this, but I made a start on theoretical computer science as a separate article, focussing on the people and organizations, they being somewhat distinct from other CS researchers. Stan 13:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a valid complement. -- ^Evanx 01:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Good decision. —Ruud 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm positive your expertise is more than welcome to create a good article on TCS! — Dzonatas 21:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus changes

I have set up this section to help us itemise the changes. We should only list issues under contention. -- ^Evanx 01:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: The article is unprotected, can we go ahead with the resolved issues? -- ^Evanx 02:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

History of CS - Resolution reached: Details to be disputed on history page.

• Just a link will do. — Dzonatas 02:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Your original point was regarding a factual standpoint. There is already a link on the article. Can we consider this resolved then? -- ^Evanx 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"computability of algorithms and mathematical functions" is bogus. Computability and computable algorithms and mathematical functions are different areas. It's an obvious attempt to delete the history that I wrote (based on alanturing.net, and which wasn't even moved to the history page). Solution: eliminate all history text from the CS page and just provide the link. — Dzonatas 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

An article like CS requires a history section. Although that itself is another article, a summary of it coupled with the link provides the reader with some background which isn't bogus in a wider context. Your solution will leave the present article feeling less substantial. I do not agree with it. If other users were deleting your piece regarding the history of CS, perhaps you should take it up with them and the appropriate talk pages before editing. -- ^Evanx 06:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

By the appropriate talk pages, do you than suggest that I show every detail for every revert and the annotate the evolution of time of this article where it once said "Computer science, an academic discipline, is a body of knowledge about hardware, software, computation and theory" to where it now only states "Computer science is the study of computation" altogether for a report on this talk page? — Dzonatas 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that if there is a problem with the history page, then the dispute should be voiced there and a consensus reached before editing. You may need to refactor some comments then. -- ^Evanx 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You have said that just a link will do. Are you going back on your words? -- ^Evanx 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I have restored the deleted text elsewhere. Any bogusity can be disputed on that talk page. Just a link will do. — Dzonatas 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I will consider this resolved then. -- ^Evanx 20:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Algorithms are formal descriptions of the computation of functions. The history that was in the article prior to recent edits was the history of computing hardware, not the history of computer science. --bmills 07:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Under the current protection status, it is currently the latter. Just to confirm, you are endorsing this version? -- ^Evanx 07:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --bmills 22:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep a summary of the [[history of computer science article. —Ruud 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. resolution reached. -- ^Evanx 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Theory and practice - currently unresolved

• Expand — Dzonatas 02:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. At present, there isn't that much more of material to add. -- ^Evanx 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's dubious. — Dzonatas 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Under that section, Ruud has asked you to "fix" it. I gather that as asking you to provide the sources that you have requested. bmills finds no issue with the current issue. I find there is inadequate material at the present to warrant the separation but left open the possibility of one should there be more in the future.

I have been very compromising so far and I expect the same from you if we are to reach a firm verdict. So far, I do not see many others who will work with your claims. -- ^Evanx 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Allow some wikipedians here to make claims for which others have to do the dirty work to back it up? Well, let's back up for a momment. Why couldn't such expectation be applied to the previous state of the article where it stated "Computer science, an academic discipline, is a body of knowledge about hardware, software, computation and its theory"? Or is it that you ask me to verify it's current state? I can understand the later, and it is still dubious. "Some universities teach..." or "Many universities teach..."... hmmm. Assume good faith and change it to "There are universities that...", well, I'm sure you get the point. — Dzonatas 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely regarding expectation and validity that most are fine with the current presentation, even with regards to other versions you have brought up. -- ^Evanx 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. No additional content has been suggested at this point; what would be added to expand it? The section as it currently stands simply highlights the difference between the "theoretical" interpretation of CS and the "practical" approach to CS, but includes both as valid. --bmills 07:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Addition of list of related fields - Resolution reached: no current objections.

• Link. Just a link at the bottom will do. — Dzonatas 02:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Link. Valid complement. -- ^Evanx 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Link. Consistent with other links to CS-related (but not field-exclusive) lists. --bmills 07:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will consider this resolved? It looks like we are getting somewhere now. -- ^Evanx 04:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Creation of Theoretical computer science article - Resolution reached: no current objections.

Stan's content looks good to me — we shouldn't separate "theoretical computer science" from "computer science", as theoretical CS is just as valid as applied CS, but the current version properly describes theory as a subset of CS as a whole. --bmills 07:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the separation should not be an issue since it would also lead to the creation of another article: applied CS. Should we then merge the theory article into the main one under the Theory and practice section? -- ^Evanx 07:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge: We have had enough headaches with this article alone that justifies a separate article for TCS. I'm sure in a perfect world in a perfect place we have the perfect CS article that includes TCS. Wikipedia is a bit more chaotic than that perfect place. We must go the extra mile to set-up articles so that reader's feel there own inhibitation to edit the opener (for example) to make it sway more towards applied CS, TCS, academic CS, non-academic CS, etc. For now, TCS is pretty distinct from the rest of CS that is will help to have it own article to help cause that self-inhibitation. You follow? — Dzonatas 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that "don't merge" and "link" is the same standing point. Since there are no objections to the details I raised about how the link will be situated, I guess this works for everyone. I will set it as resolved. -- ^Evanx 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Link: Imperfections of wikipedia aside, I don't think "keeping out those rascally theorists" is a good motivation. Theoretical CS is not "distinct"(2) from CS; it's an essential part of it. However, the theoretical computer science article as it is currently formulated goes into a level of depth that is probably best suited to a separate article, in the same way that software engineering (which is very close to "applied CS") has another article in more depth. But there should be a link somewhere in the page. --bmills 22:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Is everyone fine with placing a link to theoretical CS under the fields section that I am asking to restore? -- ^Evanx 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. --bmills 22:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Link. To be placed under fields section and fields section to be reformulated as suggested. -- ^Evanx 03:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of Fields - Resolution reached: no current objections.

• Restore, but expand into summaries instead of just a list. —Ruud 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. Appears to be differentiated from the careers section and is justifiable. -- ^Evanx 08:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

After examining recent edits, I find no problem with the inclusion of the fields of computer science. Although the careers section seem to imply that it maps onto the fields, I find that the career options often merge several fields in their occupation. These fields also prove the diversity of CS and may not be a full list. But as a present measure, I believe its restoration is a valid point. -- ^Evanx 08:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Restore, split into related fields, and summarize, as in the Biology and Physics articles (which are fairly well-structured). Mark as {{section-stub}} in the meantime. --bmills 23:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete again: This is confused with the list of fields. I didn't object to restore the fields section, but without the list. The fields sections already had some summaries. — Dzonatas 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You wish to restore the fields section but not as a list (in this case, more of a list of summaries)? How else would you like it to be without compromising the current presentation which has a systemic flow? My guess is that the present status is still being organised.

Not to be sarcastic or cynical, but I find that raising an objection 5 days after my last comment and right after my disagreement with your unilateral editing, is highly coincidental. As discussed, the opinion was to expand/split into related fields and summarize, which I interpret as being fairly accurate in the present form. -- ^Evanx 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I will consider this resolved? -- ^Evanx 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Restore Overview section - currently unresolved

Could you explain what was lost in the overview section? I'm sorry but I can't find it. -- ^Evanx 08:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I started to emphasize the system aspect, but that isn't the point. I described the SDLC as typical phases to manage construction and analysis of systems. These systems generally include computational systems, operational systems, construction systems, hardware systems, software systems, and anything else that is in abstract form within the domain of a computer system. Before I was blocked and the entire article changed, I was about to suggest some changes to the opener (on the talk page) to replace "Computer science, an academic discipline, is a body knowledge about computer hardware, software, computation and theory" with something like "Computer science is the study, or science, of computer systems and related computation." It wasn't perfect. Perhaps, I should have still put that on the talk page, but I noticed my edits started to change, and I wanted to incorporate the other wikipedians intentions. If you notice, you'll see that I actually broke up the opener as it existed and put part of it into the overview, which was a suggestion by tompsci. Such move was reported by R.Koot as a revert. After I had been blocked, I discussed it with the admin that blocked me. It was noted that I was unblocked early, but I didn't edit the page for couple of days. I started on the talk page. Immediately, we saw the stones thrown again. The overview dissapeared. We are here. — Dzonatas 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with the text below? It is an addition right? I will agree if it is an addition and that it does not replace any text in the article. -- ^Evanx 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The text of the overview section:

The computer system performs automated tasks and executes computational systems. Modern computer systems have an operating system, which contains a set of software-based algorithms that controls its hardware system.

Software involves a study of computer languages and programming paradigms, which further involves mathematical practices and abstraction.

Hardware involves the study of computer architecture and its peripherals. Hardware systems may consist only of a set of a direct cybernetic interfaces to attached physical devices, or it may consist of virtual hardware devices, known as the hardware abstraction layer. Virtual hardware is not physical, so it is usually in the form of software.

Computer science uses experimentation and investigation to initiate system development. A typical life cycle of system development is delineated into a sequence of phases: analysis, design, development, implementation, maintenance, and back to investigation or experimentation (if needed). Besides system development, the act of hardware and software construction is an engineerial aspect, related to computer engineering and information technology. Computer science, on the other hand, goes deeper into computability.

• Rewrite. There should be an overview section, but I do not find the overview above adequate. —Ruud 22:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite. I have serious problems with the inclusion of this content, especially as an overview of CS in general. The first and third paragraphs, I think, belong in computer system. The second and fourth paragraphs describe computer programming and software engineering in particular rather than computer science in general, and (in keeping with our current avoidance of field-specific content) belong in those articles; if we expand and restore "fields" to incorporate significant summaries they could be a good part of the summaries for those articles, though.

I was, in fact, the one who most recently deleted that content. If we are going to provide field-specific content we need to do so without placing undue emphasis on any particular set of fields, which means:

• Including content from all branches of CS (or as many as we can), rather than a restricted subset. Until this can be accomplished, that section should be marked with {{section-stub}}.
• Treating lengthy summaries of fields as such, rather than as a brief overview of CS in general.
• Avoiding in-depth summaries of topics that are related to CS but not included in the study or practice of CS itself. You'll notice the Astronomy article doesn't include in-depth content on telescopes, though it does refer to several ways in which astronomers use telescopes. Similarly, we need not avoid the fact that computer scientists use computer systems, but we do need to avoid discussing computer systems outside that context.

--bmills 22:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a solid point. Could someone provide a preliminary piece as per bmills? When we have that, we can vett between the 2 versions. Thanks. -- ^Evanx 04:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As this verion will is not going to be "it", the other version will be by default. I'd prefer working on that version collaborativly though. —Ruud 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can try to assist you although I perform better as an arbiter than an editor. You may have to put up with my inexperience. -- ^Evanx 01:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)