Now hold on a minute. That is a complete and utter lie and fabrication, Sv. I am not in an edit war with a Chinese guy who can't write english. In the last couple of days, on request, and having then contacted other contributors to a page and sought their advice, I reverted that page that had been rewritten by someone whose ethnic origin I am unaware of because there was 100% agreement that 1) the version he wrote was seriously inaccurate; 2) his translations of words from chinese to english were universally regarded as seriously flawed (eg, translating 'emperor' as 'lord'); 3) the user had constantly removed contributions from others. /All/ the contributors to that page argued that the particular user's english language difficulties contributed to the utter mess the page was in, but the problem was not just the linguistic mess but also the inaccurate translation and especially the systematic editing out of everyone else's contribution, and his revertion of a community edited text pulled together by Mav to his own unique and inaccurate one. I played no part in the discussion of the detail of the page, merely acted as an outsider who after consultation and with universal agreement reverted back to the Mav text, with the suggestion that everyone start again from there, along with a suggestion to that user on his talk page that he listen to other contributors on the page in question and stop deleting everyone else's contribution. But that had /nothing/ to do with my letter on this list. That came about because six times in the last eight weeks I came across articles on wiki that were unreadable because of poor english. When I mentioned this to others, other wiki users contacted me on AIM and ICQ (on which I have been on a lot lately) to tell me 'wait until you see this one!', they producing other articles, one in particular a blurred mix of Swedish and English that users of neither language could make neither head nor tail of. That is /not/ what I was doing. I was making a concrete suggestion as to how we could /help/ users who know a lot of interesting information but who because of poor english linguistic skills could not express it. Some of the articles had been there for weeks unnoticed; one three months. Neither I nor the other people who contacted me had the time to fix all the articles. My suggestion, and I repeat it, was to create a special page to which articles in need of linguistic and grammatical proofing could be placed. It was to /help/ users with language problems, not to single out people for mockery. BTW this is an /encyclopædia/, which means its articles /have/ to achieve minimum standards of accuracy, not just in content but in expression. This is not some sort of amateur scribble-box where any old rubbish will do. It is a /professional/ encyclopædia that is intended to be taken seriously, not as some semi-literate joke. A professional /english/ encyclopædia requires basic standards in terms of english. All I was suggested was that we apply basic professional standards to this project. Semi-literature articles, no matter how much quality information they contain, do no justice to the people who contribute them and the work they put into them, and risks turning a supposed professional encyclopædia into a laughing stock. I made my suggestion based on the professional needs of a professional encylopædia, and resent having my motivation twisted and misrepresented in the manner done by Stevertigo. JT _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail