Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 5 December 2006

Anyone want to discuss my edits? Do so on my discussion page. I'll justify why I do what I do.

WLU 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk

I mostly edit for clarity, grammar and good referencing, I'm a new wikipedian, so I'm still learning.

WLU 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal commentary

Please don't continue to make comments like this or this to Mystar or any other user. The first veers a bit close to a personal attack, and the general tone of both these and some of your other comments is unnecessarily incivil. I realize that there are substantial ongoing issues, but engaging in a back-and-forth that can appear taunting will not solve those issues in a manner appropriate to Misplaced Pages. You may feel provoked, particularly by veiled threats like that regarding your location, but keep in mind that personal commentary on other users is discouraged regardless of their past conduct. As a general rule, being right on substantive matters does not excuse incivil expressions of that rightness. The various forms of dispute resolution are preferable to antagonistic exchanges, and we'll all be better served if you turn to them rather than continuing a barbed discussion. Please note that this has nothing to do with your article edits and nothing to do with the arguments you make about content; it is entirely about communication with other editors. Thanks for any help you can provide. Brendan Moody 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It was getting boring anyway. WLU 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Snide commets are unproductive. I have to try hard not to do it myself (with an instance or two of me failing in that) but doing so only adds to the cycle. In the interest of my sanity I've elected to simply stop interacting with Mystar, I would recommend you also take a break. NeoFreak 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a break from snideness and stick with editing. Thanks for your advice over the past couple weeks BTW. WLU 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not going to stop editing either and neither should you or anyone that wants to contribute to wikipedia first and foremost. Cheers. NeoFreak 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on October 1 2006 to Terry Goodkind

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

My IP address, which is 64.230.0.107 The name of the blocking admin is William M. Connolley The reason I was blocked is: 3rr on Terry Goodkind

Dear Mr. Connolley,

I do not believe that my actions justify a block. My reversions in my opinion, are good faith edits.

Yes indeed. The trouble is everyone believes this. Nonetheless, you are required to stick within 3RR, no matter how good your faith might be William M. Connolley 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but can you or anyone review a comparison of our contributions for an opinion on these things? We've been waiting since August for a mediation decision. WLU 14:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved in content in things I know nothing about. Your best bet is to find other people who *are* interested via WP:RFC perhaps William M. Connolley 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

'S a good idea. I'll pursue it, thanks for the advice. WLU 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The page that I am blocked regarding has been a source of much contention between myself, Mystar, and numerous other editors. I think that Mystar's edits are consistently in bad faith, seeking to add information about the subject (Terry Goodkind) which is inaccurate and improperly (publication numbers), is essentially the same as having the subject himself (Terry Gookdind) edit the page (Mystar has stated several times that he is very close to Mr. Goodkind), and poorly written (the reverts he made were to a series of quotes Mr. Goodkind made in interviews, in which he discusses his own novels, stating essentially the same information that was already in the article, accurately summarized and much shorter). Mystar also consistently accuses others of bad faith and fails to justify his edits. Please see Talk: Terry Goodkind and Misplaced Pages:General complaints, the latter falls under Bonehead Wikipedians entry, #30 I believe. The current revision that Mystar is undergoing undoes months of work by several wikipeidans to produce an article that is not overly long and biased towards Mr. Goodkind's voice. In an effort to avoid him cluttering up the page, I created a new page where he could add these themes. Instead, he reverted the page back to his original version (actually someone else's version that added the unnecessary information - suspiciously I think, as it added exactly the information that Mystar originally wanted included in the page, almost verbatim, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/High D'Haran where Mystar may have appealed to external forums for non-regular contributors to edit wikipedia pages).

Also of note is the Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Terry Goodkind, and note my contributions to the plot summary of Chainfire, an effort to make it more general and accessible to the general reader, which Mystar reverted to a more complicated and specific version which is less accessible.

I am not completely innocent, I have insulted Mystar before and regularly check his contributions to make sure they are accurate. Still, I believe this block is unjustified.

Thanks,

WLU 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The extending issue here is that you yourself have admitted to never having read Terry Goodkind's novels, yet you continue to make edits that change the content of the article, not just the grammar or word usage. If you have not read the novels, you are not qualified to change the content of articles, only to edit for grammar and spelling consistancy. Omnilord 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true, I read Wizard's First Rule and disliked it. However, if you look at the few edits I have made in the SoT series proper, it was the plot intro of Chainfire in an effort to make it more accessible to the general reader - I took out reference to subtractive magic, leaving it just 'magic' as no-one except a reader of the series know's what subtractive magic is, but just magic is understandable. I did similar changes to simplify. I didn't touch the summary itself because I can't legitimately contribute, but I am able to shorten and simplify to the point where a non-reader (myself) understands it without having to refer to the book itself or external references. WLU 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in no way defending Mystar. I am just telling it how it is. He is one of the most well versed individuals when it comes to the Sword of Truth series irregardless of how close his ties are to the author. In fact, because of his close ties to the author, he has a better standing to know where there are errors in the articles, and point them out. With that you should not be challenging every little edit he makes, but trying to guide him to fit his contributions into an acceptable format. This means not wholesale deleting something he adds just because he doesn't know where the citation is, but instead helping him find the citation. This is a constructive project for which you're actions are destructive. I am having a very similar conversation with mystar at this moment. Omnilord 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's one of the most well-versed, but also closest to the author himself, and it is to the point where it's like having the author himself editing his own bio page - a wikipedia no-no. Also, he uses the author's own website as references and source material. Sometimes it's OK, when it's direct info about the author and his life, but other times it's a conflict of interest - what the books mean, their themes, etc. Also, I justify my edits and give reasons for what I do. Mystar rarely does. WLU 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only a no-no when the subject of the bio page is not correcting blatantly incorrect information. This has been the nature of mystar's edits. Yes, he goes overboard at times, but that's where my comment on guiding the correct information he is able to pull up into the correct format comes from; helping to find sources for what he is trying to add, etc. rather than complaining like you have to clean up a mess, treat it like a clay sculpture coming together and mystar is just adding raw clay to be molded. Omnilord 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now he's adding to the Influences and themes section, a major source of contention. Mystar and TG do not completely own the themes of the novels, they are aspects that are open to interpretation, such as and and and and and , which all point to a distasteful inclusion of sexual sadism and violence in the novels. I'll add them to balance out the positive, chest-thumping that TG/Mystar have added to the sections. WLU 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing balancing about adding those, just creating a more vitriol environment using sheer biased opinions on something they either know nothing about or refuse to acknowledge. If you are going to have an article on the Themes and Influences you cannot deny what the author says about it because no one else is going to know what has influenced them. As for themes, Terry Goodkind has deliberately incorperated themes in his novels and whether others perceive more themes or not is secondary, albeit there is an undercurrent of sadism, but not from the heroes.

Those people are right to loath evil behavior, but they are mistaken in a very slanderous way: Terry himself is not advocating such behavior, he is condemning it by portraying such behavior only in the villainous characters. Not one of those pages you link makes that distinction. And there in lies the distinguishing factor that lays the truth of the matter bare: they fear Terry's moral clarity and his ability to portray vile villains and the heroes who overcome the evil of those villains. Just because the world Terry has created is a fantasy world does not mean he limits himself to unrealistic occurances. Rape, murder, torture and other vile acts are perpetrated daily in the real world by real villains. Terry is just showing the depth of how evil villains truly can be so his heroes can properly be gauged by the evils they overcome.

When this truth is understood, those articles you link are cast in a very dark light. The purpose of such articles is not to bring the truth gleeming into the light, but to subject a figure of moral clarity to the darkness. They attempt to distance people from reading these novels on the premise that they are about evil actions. They attempt to cast a light of perversion over the series and the author because they fear the evil actions describe. What they don't do is describe the context in which such evil actions come about in the books; that the villains are evil in a realistic way.

What they fail to recognize is that the villains who perpetrate the sexual sadism, the initiation of careless violence, and all the other evil actions are defeated in the struggle by the heroes who uphold morality and the good things in life. Omnilord 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll edit the page, then comment on what I say. It took me 10 minutes of searching on google to find all these articles, which points to the idea that other people have ideas about the sexual and sadistic aspects of the books. WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What I find most confusing is the fact that you are so vehement about this on Goodkind, yet you ignore the very same proclivity on Martin and Bakker. Such content is even worst at time in their books, you edit their pages, yet we do not see you making any such assertions there? You cannot have your cake and eat it too WLU.

Worse, not worst. If you can find links to articles that support TG's opinion, that don't come from TG, feel free to include them. I've never edited anything by Bakker. The stuff on Martin's page is taken from sources external to Martin's own webpage, except for the 6th footnote (as I write this), as compared to the Goodkind bio, which has 5 sources that refer to interviews or webpages by/about TG, including www.terrygoodkind.net yours, now in the archive Mystar. If you can find sources that are critical of Martin, feel free to include them. WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You are indeed making false assumptions and we are incapable of using your point as you have openly admitted to not reading the series. First you break your word you gave. Your words were proof, ANY proof" that I had spoken with an Admin. I gave you the admins name. That constitutes as proof., then you post a blog wreaking of POV and openly aggressively bashing Goodkind's work, knowing better, you suggest that it be used, stating "that has been my experience with Goodkind", then you openly make the assertion that you've not read Goodkind, Now you state you have read Goodkind. What are we to believe? You cannot such contradictions. Breaking your word and half-truths don't work. Please edit in Good Faith. We can work togather for the betterment of Misplaced Pages--Mystar 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The page is about TG, not his work, so technically I don't have to have read it. I'm not using my own words, I'm sourcing from external pages, therefore referenced.
2. Your point about me breaking my word is tiresome, irrelevant and frankly laughable, and won't prevent me from editing the page further. I suggest not trusting me in the future, that might be best.
3. I won't be editing the novel pages, just the bio page.

WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I would ask that if you cannot be constructive in your contributions or knowledgeable in the subject matter (read the novels), please refrain from making edits. Thank you. Omnilord 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing the novel pages, and I've repeatedly said so. The only thing I'm working at is the biopage, which I have just as much right to edit as anyone. I haven't touched any pages that I remember except Chainfire, and I did that a couple times only, legitimate edits in my mind, but contested by Mystar. My edit resulted in the plot intro of:

Richard awakes to find his wife Kahlan missing. While trying to rally his supporters to begin a search, Richard discovers he is the only living person who remembers her. While seeking Kahlan, he finds out that a dark magic that has affected the memories of the people of D'Hara.

While Mystar's replacement was:

During a raid on his camp, Richard is seriously wounded and now Nicci must use subtractive magic in order to save him. Richard awakens to find his wife Kahlan The Mother Confessor, missing and soon realizes that he is the only person alive who remembers Kahlan. As he begins to search for her, he learns that he is also hunted by a beast created by Jagang's sisters of the dark. Richard must travel the land in order to find out the truth.

It proceeds from there, but actually is decent now, not worth fighting over. WLU 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply to Mystar, and his reply

This has nothing to do with the Wikiproject SoT except the fact that Terry Goodkind wrote the books. The page that Mystar is referring to is the TG biopage, which has very little info on it regarding the SoT except that he wrote it, and his influences in the series. The edits Mystar is talking about is a revert an unknown user made to basically a single section which doubled the length of the article essentially by adding in a large set of quotations from a bunch of TG interviews, all basically saying the same thing. I have added a link to the page itself which takes the reader to a new (or potentially new) page which is entitled 'Influences and Themes(Sword of Truth)', which is a more appropriate venue, in my mind.

What Mystar disingenuously leaves out is that the page has been involved in a lengthy set of edits and discussion between myself, him, and several other contributors. What existed yesterday was the result of this long process - the article was short, tight, NPOV and didn't sound like it was written TG himself. As Mystar reverted it, it was a jumble of quotes which said the same thing as what is currently in the Influences and themes section. As I write this, after reverting again, it says:

"Terry Goodkind has been largely influenced by the books of Ayn Rand and is a strong supporter of her works and of Objectivist philosophy. While he admits to writing in the fantasy genre, he perceives his novels to be more than just traditional fantasy due to their focus on philosophical and human theme"

The things Mystar wishes to include can be found in the first version of the 'Influences and Themes(Sword of Truth)' page, which I created, and there I moved the information that Mystar wishes to be included. As I realize my bias and don't really care that much about it, I'm not going to bother editing or adding content to the page, I leave that to others who are more interested.

Also of interest is the . I am not jumping into the middle of this, I am maintaining the page as it was decided by several editors. To date, no one except myself and Mystar have weighed in on the issue since the biopage was more-or-less finalized over the last couple weeks.

Further, as I think most people who have had to interact with Mystar would agree, he is an intolerant editor at best. He rarely provides reasons for his editing, aside from "I know Terry, he'd want it this way" or "That's just the way it is". He has frequently presented many issues of the biopage in particular as consensus, agreed upon and complete, prematurely. Check through the history of the talk page. I can't claim to be the perfect editor, but I believe that over time I have improved and expanded beyond the TG page and in incidents where others have disagreed with me and provided reasons, I have acquiesed and accepted the changes as improvements.

Good luck working on the SoT Wikiproject all, I have absolutely no doubt that it will be fruitful for anyone who agrees with Mystar. For everyone else, I'm sure you'll find it as frustrating as everyone else that's had to work with him. I won't be working on the project as I haven't read the books and therefore can't reasonably be expected to add substantive content. WLU 02:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than get into a dick measuring contest, this user has for some reason acted in bad faith and is only focused on attacking my work. I will point out that as I have so stated WLU is unaware of the series ergo has nothing add to the pages. The Goodkind bio page always has been included in the project. I edited it to make it clearer for her. Adding theme content et al is justified as we see on several other authors’ bio pages including George R R Martin, which WLU is acuity aware of, as she has been working on that very topic.

Again, I am doing my best to work with in the rules and as a user still becoming familiar with this media; I am going to make mistakes, thus my consistent discussion with the admins. As anyone can read my edits have been good ones as stated by parties involved. For the record, the Bio page is neither finalized nor done. Again I ask that WLU who has more than stated her dislike for the author, even though she admits never having read his works, rather allowing others to think and make up her mind for her about said author, she feels she is still qualified to edit one what he has said with regard to his work and its content. A contradiction if ever I've heard one.

My point being We/I are hard at work on this project and we can make it into a top notch Wikiproud page! We simply need people like WLU to take their personal war elsewhere. (by Mystar)

Malazan Category

Hey WLU, I got a bit ahead of myself and created a "Malazan" category for all the articles related to those books, but now I'm starting to regret it. I'm not exactly sure that "Malazan" was the right name for the category. Are the works by Esslemont considered to be part of the "Malazan Book of the Fallen"? If so, the name of the category should probably be "Malazan Book of the Fallen" instead of just "Malazan." I'm also thinking a sub-category of "Malazan Book of the Fallen books" would be in order, like the ASOIAF category has, but since I'm no expert on the series, I think I've already overreached myself. -Captain Crawdad 05:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I can by no means claim to be an expert on the subject, and I'm not really sure I understand what you did, but as far as I understand it looks like it makes sense. Night of Knives definitely concerns the Malazan category, so that seems fine. Malazan seems like a good overall category, but I'm thinking your inclination to re-name it MBotF might be best, that's the most comprehensive category and makes the most sense. However, my NoK signed copy (my girlfriend rules) has as a sub-title 'A novel of Malaz'. I'd say leave it for a while, request input from other contributors, but if you were going to change it, I'd definitely lean towards MBotF. It's not like it's cast in stone. Unfortunately since so few contributors add to the Malazan stuff, it's hard to do something really comprehensive. Have you read the books? They really are quite good (except Bonehunters, found that one a bit disappointing). Whaddya think about the changes to Cat's Claw?

Well, if you don't know what categories are, look at the bottom of any of the Malazan articles (at least, all those I found) and you'll see a link at the very bottom reading "Malazan". If you click on that, it will bring you to the category page, which will have links for all the Malazan articles (that I found). If you make any more Malazan articles, just stick the link Category:Malazan in double-brackets at the bottom of the page to include them in the category. Hopefully all this will help people find all the Malazan articles and contribute to them. Personally I only read Gardens of the Moon and enjoyed it, but not enough to motivate me to continue through the series.

Cat's Claw is looking very nice. Well-worded and referenced. -Captain Crawdad 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Terry Goodkind. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Terry Goodkind mediation

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, and I'm not sure if all of you are still interested in formal mediation, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. Please either accept or reject me as a mediator there, and if you accept, please let me know if you would prefer public or private mediation. If it's a stale issue, just say so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you already did just a minute before I left you this message. Thanks for the quick response and for having the page on your watchlist! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My own dubious behaviour

Me being a bit passive-aggressive

me making a personal attack

I accuse Mystar of having a chip on his shoulder

Me being mean

Here I belittle Mystar's reasoning powers and call him a spaz

Me making fun of Mystar

another personal attack on Mystar

general unpleasantness

just pissed off

proof re: bastique thing

suggest ignoring Mystar

You could call this one passive aggressive

More

called it babble, not real nice

Here I call Mystar a bad editor

I sorta call Mystar stupid

Here I take a couple cheap-shots at his relationship with Terry Goodkind

Call him a crappy editor

Arbitration - Section moved from User_talk:mystar to my own user page

Mystar:

What I'm posting on your talk page are not rantings, they are the beginnings of a case for arbitration which could get you banned from editing wikipedia. These are points where you have violated policy. Your continued editing without changing your interactions with myself at least, could get you kicked off. Each diff that you removed was one point where I at least found your conduct objectionable. Your editing of another user's comments (i.e. mine) on a talk page because you do not agree with what is being said is not sensible, reasonable, or good practices. I should not have to revert a talk page.

Anyway, all that being said, I'm pursuing arbitration.

Other comments:

Reply by Mystar on Talk:Sword_of_Truth

• Notes from past arguments on this crapola....
• To WLU: Anything on a blog is not a reputable source (See Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources). In addition, anything that TG may have said to any of his fans really is a completely trivial piece of information, and as such, it is not of an encyclopedic nature.
• Finally, to Mystar: Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of vandalism (Please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and specifically the section entitled What vandalism is not). I've been contributing to this page for months now, and I have yet to see one instance of true vandalism by a regular contributor.

As always, lets all be civil here. Thanks, Runch 23:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Terry is not a sadist, don't make him out to be one just because he is able to create evil villains who can portray evil traits (IE sadism, violence, sexual-misconduct). If you want to address this, keep it local to the books/series, and don't make it sound like you are labelling the author with the same sweeping judgement. We can work on making it read appropriately in the appropriate article(s). Omnilord 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again we seek creditable sources...professional and NOT POV driven or attacks simply because the bloger feel threatened by Goodkind's success Mystar 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources are blogs. Which do you consider a blog?

If the author's opinions are not valid, then they should be removed from his bio page. I'm in favour of leaving them up, and including the opinion piece in the section below/on the SoT page.

I never said TG was a sadist (or I may have, but I am not trying to include that here), I included a section which discusses, in part, the sadistic elements of the series. Which is why I followed Omnilord's suggestion and put this up on the SoT page instead of the TG page - this is the page about the novels, not the author.

The reviews are not on blogs, they are on review websites. Most of it could be probably reduced to the infinity review and the Scifi review, along with the response from TG about the abusive relationship, which gives the section purpose rather than making it some random, headline-grabbing element.

Here's the section again in case you wanted to look at it for concrete examples. Please give me concrete examples, as labelling everything as incorrect doesn't let me understand your reasoning.

Criticism and themes

The Goodkind's sole body of work to date, the Sword of Truth series, has received both criticism and acclaim. Reviewers discuss the awkward and repetetive prose, and also the extremity of the sexual sadism and violence of the series. However, critics have also noted improvement in his writing over the development of the series, his ability to construct a detailed and creative world, and his writing of heroic characters with a powerful sense of morality. Goodkind himself has defended his inclusion of items such as torture, stating that (regarding Wizard's First Rule) his purpose was to highlight the helplessness, degredation and irrationality of an abusive relationship, not to shock or disgust.

1. Review at www.sfreviews.net
2. Review at www.flakmag.com
3. Review at christianfantasy.net
4. Review at www.inchoatus.com
5. ^ Review at www.infinityplus.co.uk
6. Interview at a Virginia booksigning

Section moved from Mystar's talk page

Personal attack:

here here here here here this one's debatable called someone a nazi this one's debatable also here's one here's an attack on another user's editing and writing skills here's one where he wants to find out who I am more conspiracy stuff another one wants my actual identity here's another one where he wants to know who I am, plus conspiracy stuff stuff more stuff on my offline identity attack on another user another one Accusation of bad faith, blatant error about the sources

I'm reporting you and requesting comments. Quit wikistalking me and editing just to piss me off.

Also your pestering, passive-aggresive cheapshot comments here here here here here here here here here here here here here this is one of the weird conspiracy theory/everyone hates Terry Goodkind moments here's another one cheap shot irritating comment provocation irritating post cheap shot inciting comments

And here is one where you remove one of my links from the page and here is another section where you either accidentally or on purpose edited in the middle of a link that proved my point.

Also irritating me is the tendency to proclaim an issue prematurely closed: here this one's an empty threat here's a promise for more links here's one where on a very contended page he edits and promises a link, wiithout providing it right away accusing someone of using sockpuppets nominating an article for deleiton just after it was created by myself more promised proof a series of bizzare edits that don't make sense but do gut any chance I have of making an actual point.

This is your second warning and after this it moves on to requests for comments from other users. Feel free to gather the same information on me. WLU 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess youleave me no choice but to lower myself to your petty squable and post such thens as your attacks, bad faith, page ownership admissions, removing other posters comments etc. how truly OCD petty...--Mystar 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a rant, and this is not a petty squabble. This is the first step in a dispute mediation process in which both our conducts will be weighed against each other, and binding arbitration could result. I will end my request and not pursue this further if you stop stalking me and stop making tendentious, inflammatory edits. WLU 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Again kindly stop editing my talk page. You are wrong this is petty...on your part. Pot calling th eKettle black and all... While I am in no way completely innocent of past actions, they were in the past. I have conducted my actions with Good Faith, and most of them checking first with several Misplaced Pages people and admins before making them. Yeah I have proof don't worry :)

You have removed other users comments, edited in bad faith, owned pages and attacked me as well as admitted you having an agenda against Goodkind where you started all this crapola.. It really is in your contribs you cannot hide it. Removing other users commentaries is not a very good thing to do.

As I've said. Yours agenda is clear. You dislike Goodkind, haven't even read him, yet you feel totally knowledgeable in attempting to add content that you know nothing about. Simply allowing other to think for yourself and make your mind up for you. You read a rant and think it justified, when you haven’t even taken the time or initiative to verify it for yourself.... seems to me there is a huge problem with that.

OH your "BFF Terry" also didn't earn you and brownie points. It is attacks and aggressive name calling/smearing that marks your agenda clearly. In the future please refrain from ugliness of that sort. It is very unbecoming of a lady.

In short, you may well try and get an action taken against me, but you are causing a great deal of exasperation along the way, simply because you have an agenda (your admission), which doesn’t bode well for your position. I’ve been editing in good faith. I’ve made some good edits, you simply cannot stand to have them stand is the problem. I happen to know a great deal of many herbal remedies. Your attack against me for taking an interest in that page is an attack and unwarranted. Things like trying to stir up trouble also go against Wiki policy. Trying to incite angst among users is a no no… so an admin just told me. That is not my problem. Page ownership is an overall Wiki problem.

I know I’ve been aggressive in the past, with good reason. One of them was banned, and as I’ve stated I’ve plenty of outside proof of planed attacks on TG’s pages as well as sources out side Wiki that specifically incite people to do what was being done.

BUT, my edits as of late are and have been good ones, and have also been discussed with seasoned Wikipedians before I made them. I spend a great deal of time on Misplaced Pages IRC discussing these things. I’d take a gooooood long look in the mirror before I moved forward were I you. The pot calling the kettle black isn’t going to sit well with anyone.

Stop owning pages, stop with your agenda, be an honorable person of your word and act in good faith and we will be just fine. The choice is yours. --Mystar 03:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eccentric and concentric contraction

For anyone who's wondering and watching, I merged eccentric and concentric contraction into the article on muscle contraction - makes sense to have it there rather than explaining all the aspects of muscle contraction separately on three different pages. I welcome thoughts.

WLU 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2x fibers

That's very interesting. Despite my young age, I've been studying for years in the health field and have taken a personal trainer course from the American Council on Exercise (ACE). Even ACE refers to muscle fiber types in 3 categories: Type 1, Type 2A, and Type 2B. I'm not at all saying you are incorrect! I've caught ACE citing old, outdted information on at least 2 occasions before. This may be another occasion. I'm simply looking for clarification. So humans may actually have: Type 1, Type 2A, and Type 2X fibers? Is that correct? I also know that muscle fibers are often characterized by their features (Type 1 red and small, Type 2 big and white etcetera) but from what I understand, it is not actually the characteristics that determines what fiber Type a muscle fiber is. The determinent is based on the structure of the myosin heavy chains which is genetically determined. Do you know if that is that correct? I've actually been working on making my very own health book for over 3 years and I want all my information to be accurate. So I'd really appreciate if you could clarify this for me! :-) Jamesters 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mystar's message from user page

How droll. I find your apparent and unconcern for your misinformation sad. What you may not be aware of is that you so called "carefully referenced information" was in fact wrong. You continue to own pages where people constantly have to go behind you and fix your misinformation. The sad part of it is that usually people walk away because they have lives and have no desire to get into an edit war...unlike you. Again I'm asking you to stop your incessant edit warring and page owning. You mock what is for me and many people who suffer with Lupus the fact that taking the wrong things can indeed kill. Placing incorrect information can lead to many kinds of adverse reactions. How sad for you that you make a mockery of such things. As I so stated on the talk page I show your information to be incorrect. Lupus and Lupus SLE are two different things and require differing methods. And then we have the fact that you are adding needless Information and information that has already been placed. Anyone who comes in behind you and fixes anything, your ego will not allow it to stand, No you have to go reedit in a lame attempt to show your page ownership. Providing correct and pertinent information is not a frivolous endeavor. As I have said in the past. People use Misplaced Pages as research for their well-being and better health ....not just for facts. You need to behave and take this seriously. With such things as medicine, herbal remedies, homeopathic remedies, such information is too valuable to treat in such a silly manor as you do. Yes people’s lives do depend on such PROPER information. Mystar 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My reply

Though doubtless you'll either erase or edit my message, here's my reply to your thoughts.

>I find your apparent and unconcern for your misinformation sad. What you may not be aware of is that you so called "carefully referenced information" was in fact wrong.

See, you say 'misinformation' and call my information wrong, yet you have yet to provide anything beyond your own experience to back it up. If my information is so wrong, so glaringly, obviously wrong, and you're not just bluffing, it should be pretty easy to find something to back up your assertion.

>You continue to own pages where people constantly have to go behind you and fix your misinformation.

Actually Ron, I think the exact same thing about you. Generally in my efforts to fix the stuff you post I end up finding out something else useful to put up on the page that improves it, so it's not a lost cause, but it really does take time away from other things I'd rather be doing on Misplaced Pages.

>The sad part of it is that usually people walk away because they have lives and have no desire to get into an edit war...unlike you.

Is this you being funny again? Do you see the contradiction here? We've both been tagged for breaking the 3 revert rule, and we've both reverted each other's edits on the Cat's Claw page what, twice today? Anything you accuse me of, you have done as well. Do you not see the contradiction?

>Again I'm asking you to stop your incessant edit warring and page owning.

You mean like replacing the reference in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal where it discusses the involvement of Cat's Claw in kidney failure? I think that's a whole lot more useful than a general warning that CC should be used with caution like other herbals. If you have a reason to remove the reference, please let me know what it is. That's the thing I find most frustrating about trying to edit with you, you never seem to justify yours. I can't even argue with you 'cause usually the most I've got to go on is stuff like "I talked to Terry and he said it was so." How is anyone supposed to build consensus or a verifiable entry with that?

>You mock what is for me and many people who suffer with Lupus the fact that taking the wrong things can indeed kill. Placing incorrect information can lead to many kinds of adverse reactions.

One would hope Misplaced Pages would be a starting point, not a final diagnosis. I also think the warning about kidney failure is sufficient to dissuade people from going to the herbal section rather than the doctor. Again, a reason to keep that particular information in.

>How sad for you that you make a mockery of such things. As I so stated on the talk page I show your information to be incorrect.

Um, no you didn't unless I missed something. You put up that quote that said CC has been used to treat a whole list of conditions, of which SLE was one of them. I don't know how that contradicts my point that manufacturers claim it can be used to treat SLE. Seems to support it, unless there is a subtle point I'm missing.

>Lupus and Lupus SLE are two different things and require differing methods. And then we have the fact that you are adding needless Information and information that has already been placed.

See, the thing is every time I look for lupus, what comes up is SLE. When people refer to lupus, they seem to be referring to SLE. I realize there's five kinds of lupus on Misplaced Pages alone and a bunch of other ones on the Internet, but it seems that Lupus=SLE for the most part. Perhaps you should create pages discussing the more specific aspects of whatever lupus you are talking about that isn't SLE, drug-induced Lupus Erythematosus, Lupus nephritis, Lupus pernio,or Lupus vulgaris, the five kinds that are currently on wikipedia. I'm too busy trying to find time to edit the Steven Erikson articles. And in response to your concrete comment about Lupus not equalling SLE, I altered the link so now the article on CC links specifically to SLE, the type of lupus referenced in the weblink that says CC was used to treat SLE. Specific feedback I will edit for, but as heartfelt as your electronic sighs seem to be, they are less convincing than a web article with a references section. I'm not sure what your academic background is, but mine leans heavily towards double-blinded placebo trials (and qualitative research oddly enough).

>Anyone who comes in behind you and fixes anything, your ego will not allow it to stand, No you have to go reedit in a lame attempt to show your page ownership.

Um, I think you'd find that rather inaccurate, if you check my contributions, which you apparently seem to do. I generally have issues with your edits since they seem to be pretty spiteful and not particularly helpful (by the way, will you PLEASE correct the damage to the lupus article? There are still two treatment sections, and I don't know the difference between "Known Treatment" and (regular?) "Treatment". The introduction of the page is designed to provide a brief preview of the rest of the article - there should be no information there that's not in the main body. You breaking it up into two sections just messes it up. That is "Lupus Erythematosus" specifically). If I owned pages, I would have re-worked that one months ago.

>Providing correct and pertinent information is not a frivolous endeavor. As I have said in the past.

I think you need a comma splice in there, not a period.

>People use Misplaced Pages as research for their well-being and better health ....not just for facts.

Misplaced Pages (and research in general) should be a collection of facts. Specific research should also include interpretation, Misplaced Pages should not. People may be using wikipedia for info regarding health, so I left in the section about how Cat's Claw might have caused kidney failure for that reason. That's a sore point, and one of the reasons I suspect and correct your edits.

>You need to behave and take this seriously.

You need to play fair, which means saying, for real, why, with references or at least justification, why you make the changes you do, if they are being contested. That's why I spend the time on the talk pages. Also, it's Misplaced Pages, it's fun, and it's publically editable. Half the changes on the site involve the word penis for God's sake. You can't take it that seriously.

>With such things as medicine, herbal remedies, homeopathic remedies, such information is too valuable to treat in such a silly manor as you do. Yes people’s lives do depend on such PROPER information.

I would think that people's lives depend on their doctors mostly. I would not expect someone with lupus (again, Lupus erythematosus) to solely use wikipedia for diagnosis and treatment. Misplaced Pages should be a starting point for research (hence the references), not a finishing point. I edit in the manner that I do so my information is justified and verfiable, which I do not think of as silly. Again, I would categorize many of your edits as spiteful. But why should we be the ones to decide, let's take it up with arbitration? Since you feel so strongly that you are in the right, you should have no problem with this. Now, I'm expecting you to delete this right away (thank God again for diffs and history) without a reply, because I don't think there's much you could say. Go ahead. I'll be posting it on my page as well.

Thanks for not calling me a girl, and generally items such as this should be posted on user talk pages, not discussion.

WLU 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

>If you have so precious little time on your hands and you have other things you want to edit more, or other things in youre life you wish to do, what on earth is possessing you to continue with your editing wars? Do you get a perverse enjoyment out of causing trouble? If you have things that you would prefer to be doing, then please, by all means, go do them and leave us be, I think it would be better for everyone involved. Omnilord 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your case

Would you mind if I mediated your mediation cabal case? WikieZach| talk 05:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind, please go ahead. WLU 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Churg-Strauss

I'm completely mystified why you have decided to lowercase the "s" in every occurrence of Churg-Strauss syndrome on the Wiki. To be sure, eponymous diseases are always spelled with a capital (such as Rendu-Osler-Weber syndrome). I'm reverting back the changes; I hope you don't mind I'll be using admin rollback to speed up this process. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't sure which one to use (both Churg-Strauss and Churg-strauss existed as separate entries), I happened to pick the wrong one when I integrated the two articles and put in a redirect. I think I kept Cs when I should have kept CS, and put the redirect on the Cs page instead. Please go ahead with the changes, naturally I'd prefer that the information on the Cs page be kept and moved to the CS page rather than simply reverting both pages - I spent a good half-hour integrating the information and making sure three wasn't an overlap. Right now both spellings/capitalizations exists, I just wanted to make sure all the redirects headed towards the proper one instead of funneling to a second redirect. WLU 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ekova

• The article was speedily deleted under convention A7 (see the criteria for speedy deletion). This was because the article failed to assert the notability of the group. Speedy deletion allows admins to delete on sight without further debate, which is why you couldn't find one. For future reference, you can look at the WikiLog to see when and where and why important actions (such as deletion) were performed. Because Ekova was speedily deleted, you can recreate the article at your leisure; the new version should assert notability via the band criteria, or it will likely be removed again. Hopefully that answers your questions, if you have more, do message me. =] ♠PMC♠ 22:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your mediation case

Would you like to mediate your case? WikieZach| talk 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I already answered this, unless I don't understand what you're asking... I am fine with mediating the case, has the other party agreed? WLU 13:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Organ Hypertrophy

Sounds okay to add a section in the main article, perhaps "examples of hypertrophys" would be an appropiate section in the Organ Hypertropy article. That way more examples can be added. Links are good to illustrate further in detail the examples. Lord Metroid 18:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Further WLU-mystar

As the mediator in the WLU-Mystar case, would you like to bring it to the Mediation Committee? WikieZach| talk 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again apologies for not replying sooner, I'm having trouble keeping track of the talk pages people are replying on. I think I would. I just read the MC page and don't really understand the difference between, say, you mediating the case, and someone else (or several someones? The mediation committee?) doing so. So as far as I know, yes I would like my case brought before the MC. WLU 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dentritic Cells

Hi! I was not aware that you had already deleted a similar link already. In fact, I didn't know there was a redirect page with "Follicular dendritic cell" as a title. All I wanted to do was to create a "dry" link pointing to a non-existing page, as a hint for someone to create a page with that title. Sorry if I stepped on your foot! -- Hugo Dufort 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lupus

I'd be glad to. Thanks for the invite. --Waterspyder 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good. My main issue is that many former contributors treat Lupus like it is a single-faceted illness. Case and point: My particular manifestation is mild, I take plaquenil with no side effects, and twice I've had to take a short course of steroids due to a bizarre systemic reaction to living resulting in a rash and temporary blindness. My close friend of the same age has lupus, takes bloodthinners and steroids, and has undergone dialysis, chemotherapy and heart surgery to correct or alleviate effects of the lupus on his body. Do these even sound like the same disease? If you're up for some more writing I would love to see some elements from http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec04/ch032/ch032g.html# integrated into the article, especially the bits on classifying the disease and "mild or remittant" or "severe". Maybe I'll take another peek at it when I have time this weekend. --Waterspyder 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I was pretty tapped out myself at one point and I left something in the discussion about drug-induced lupus, and it's really neat to see how far the article has come. --Waterspyder 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bone

Good work on the article, WLU! I'm going to delve into it a bit further. Sorry, in advance, if I step on any toes by re-doing edits of yours. I'm approachable if you see any problems. Figma 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think where we're getting hung up is on the distinction between bone-the-connective-tissue and bones-the-organs in the intro paragraph. In other words, "bone" is not an organ, but "bones" are. Am I making sense here? Maybe we need to highlight this distinction.

Also, thanks for your feedback re: the numbered lists. I think I'll switch them to bulleted. Figma 21:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree, the article should be about bones, the organs. We can move all of the stuff about bone (as opposed to "a bone" or "bones") to osseous tissue and create a better disambiguation header to reflect that. Maybe move this discussion to Talk: Bone? Figma 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I feel silly.... should have looked at Talk: Bone earlier! They were having this same discussion at the end of September! Check it out. Figma 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

It's been closed. WikieZach| talk 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SBI/SLE/SUV?

Sounds like a bad television show. Seriously, I have had enough - I tried months ago and should have quit while I was ahead.

What I have ascertained from the studies I've read (and yes there are some that show an increase in connective tissue disease), is that none of the studies consider the long term effects of silicone gel in the body. It has been documented in peer-reviewed studies that silicone does migrate when implants are ruptured. There are no studies documenting the rate of rupture after 10 years, in newer implants (what Oliver calls 3rd and 4th generation), and none on older implants. There are none on the older implants because those implants are not sold anymore, and the manufacturers fund the studies, and funded them for the purpose of obtaining FDA approval on the newer implants. I will note one thing I caught in the article on implants. A statement was made that the rupture rate was 5-8% at 10 years. The authors (of the cited study cited) actually concluded "the rate of rupture increases significantly with age" and "a minimum of 15% rupture can be expected between 3 and 10 years." Another study showed a lower rupture rate (8%) but that excluded implants that had been removed for any reason (including rupture) and that study admitted that its results therefore likely underestimated the rate of rupture. None of the studies showing higher rupture rates were included because they were deemed flawed by the Wiki editor writing this.

As to SLE -- I would never take cats claw or the like for SLE, because I have seen no studies that suggest it is effective, and the risks of not mediating my illness are too great to chance it. Unfortunately, there are scant peer-reviewed studies on any of these alternative drugs that I know of. The problem with pharmaceutical research is that manufacturers have no financial interest in funding studies on remedies or potential remedies they cannot patent. To complicate matters, increasingly the "peers" who review the studies also have a financial interest in the results. This is true of all medical research, and it is an admitted problem. For decades, for example, the only available "research" on cigarettes was published by the Tobacco Research Institute, funded and controlled by cigarette companies. For a fascinating history of this issue, see Cornered: Big Tobacco at the Bar of Justice. It took 50 years or more to finally expose tobacco "research" as bogus, and it was finally exposed by those dreaded tort lawyers. I will not deny that dedicated doctors did not have a part in exposing this, as well. Not many doctors had a financial interest in tobacco - unlike say, many pharmaceuticals, medical implants and even clinics (which was another exposed conflict-of-interest).

In the US, anyway, the threat of liability is one deterrent to publishing bogus (or incomplete) studies. Just yesterday, a cholesteral drug was pulled by the manufacturer before it came out of clinical trials and was approved by the FDA. That mfg only had to look at Merck and the recent lawsuits on Vioxx (which was FDA approved) for its motivation to pull the drug. However, there is some precedent now in the US that once drugs are approved by the FDA, an injured consumer is barred from suing. The theory is that the manufacturer relied to its possible detriment on the FDA approval. That also becomes a problem when the FDA does not demand adequate assurance, as it arguably has not done in a number of cases. (The FDA has, in fact, come under highly publicized attack for this.) Unfortunately, research is expensive. The only alternative is government/taxpayer funded research, and that is not likely to happen. Therefore, we are stuck with what is available. But some research is better than no research. That does not negate the problem.

Going back to implants... for years and years there was no published research. Implants were not regulated by any agency, and when the FDA finally began "regulating" medical devices, it grandfathered in these implants. Additionally, plastic surgeons continued to change the design, for various reasons ..to make them more 'natural' in appearance (thus making the shell thinner and rupture more likely), to reduce capsular contracture (using polyurethane or double lumen) etc. For that reason, even when implant manufacturers were required to "study" them, there was no consistent follow-up.

Women now have had implants for 20, 30, 40 years and the likelihood that they are ruptured is very high. These women often do not have the resources to have reoperations, insurance usually does not cover it, and there are plastic surgeons who refuse to remove implants unless the woman agrees to reimplant (yes, it is true). These women who do become ill are told that their illness cannot possibly be caused by implants - that was true even in the adjunct studies, when surgeons were required by the FDA to report such complaints. These women are considered "anecdotes" or are dismissed as crazy, "conspiracy theorists" and the like. Now that the US FDA has approved implants for women 22 years old and older, and plastic surgeons claim that they are the most "studied device in the world" the manufacturers are faced with virutally zero threat of liability.

As you probably know, lupus is only a shorthand for any one of several types of lupus such as SLE, discoid lupus, etc. Contrary to what one "doctor" implied on the Clin-Med website, this was not a vague "oh i feel bad it must be an immune problem" by the "uneducated", for whom he admitted such antipathy. I have been diagnosed with SLE (systemic) on the basis of many clinical symptoms, and consistently abnormal lab tests which included ANA as well as specific antibodies for lupus, urine tests (testing for possible kidney involvement) etc. I also was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis based on clinical symptoms such as ataxia, numbness, vertigo and also objective tests (all of which were abnormal) such as MRI of the brain, MRI of the cervical spine and a spinal tap.

So you can see that I was one of those anecdotes. I was not called "crazy" or a "conspiracy theorist" when I became sick. My internist had known me for 10 years, and I never bothered to tell her I had 20 year old implants. I never registered for the class action, or thought about the implants because I was swayed by the reports that the women who sued were probably greedy, hysterical or worse. Besides, I was in graduate school then and my internist had a hard enough time getting me to go see her, let alone a specialist. That changed when I became so sick I could no longer function. Within 6 months, I was diagnosed with mulitple autoimmune diseases - including multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, autoimmune thyroid disease.

It was a friend (an MD) who suggested finally I have a breast MRI (which showed rupture). By the time I had my implants removed, I carried an epipen because I had woke up with hives and went into anaphylactic shock. Putting the pieces together after-the-fact, I realize that the implants propably ruptured with a mammogram five years before. The FDA states that mammograms can cause rupture, and I had only had one mammogram. Additionally, my first symptoms (itchy rashes which no dermatologist could figure out) began almost immediately thereafter. I learned to live with those rashes, after spraying Raid everywhere to kill what I thought may be small insects stinging me, and trying every cream and prescription known to man (that probably is an exaggeration, but I tried many). Those rashes that I had for 5 years went away after I had my implants (and the scar tissue around them) removed. Completely. Could it be psychogenic? Sure. Anything can be labeled as pschogenic if you take it to the extreme - and this would be taking it to an extreme, especially since i never befor had considered the implants might be a problem.

Since surgery, my blood tests returned to normal, and have remained normal. I discontinued interferon for MS, because for me the risks outweighed the benefit. However, my rheumatologist insists that I will need to take immune-mediating drugs for the rest of my life. I do wonder if some women may be more susceptible to an environmental trigger like migrating silicone. And if that is the case, would the lupus be reversible as is drug-induced lupus? I do not know. The problem is that we will never know, because nobody cares enough to research it, and there is no money in it.

BACK to the SLE article---- I don't care if the SLE stays as it is. The statement is true, as far as it goes. I care more about the breast implant article, but have given up on it, since one plastic surgeon has argued for omitting relevant information. A few of the examples include the following:

1. Omission of the FDA recommendation that women with silicone implants have MRIs 3 years after imlantation, and every 2 years thereafter to screen for rupture (which is asymptomatic). He argues that it is not a worldwide standard. It is true that MRIs are expensive (~ $1500 a pop), and probably will not be covered by insurance. MRIs are the most accurate tool (86%) we have to detect rupture. Additionally, mammograms can and do cause rupture. However, most plastic surgeons still tell women to continue having mammograms, regardless of the age of their implants. Of course, the older the implants, the more likely they will rupture. This is the case, despite the fact that there are no long term studies of the effects of rupture, for any style of implant. And it is obvious from this surgeons comments, that most surgeons will not tell women to get MRIs as the FDA recommends.

2. Inclusion of one specific study to quote a low rupture rate at 10 years -- this despite the fact that the authors of that study admitted the rate is likely an underestimate, because women who removed their implants (for whatever reason) were excluded from the study. And the author's statement is deemed too much 'detil' to include. Every other peer-reviewed study suggests a much higher rupture rate. The next study with the lowest rupture rate states "a minimum of 15% at 10 years." But in the article, it is now stated as 8-15% at 10 years. Thankfully, the surgeon did change it to 8-15% after I pointed out that the 5-8% he originally wrote was simply a misquote of the study he cited.

3. The omission of the FDA condition that women be 22 years old or older to have augmentation with silicone implants (reconstruction is approved). That isn't necessary in the article because surgeons can choose to ignore it, as an "off label" use.

So, this is what is happening. Since a medical doctor is considered more credible than an epidemiologist (who has argued for changes), an internist, another plastic surgeon, or a mere woman who had implants, the BI article will remain as it is, and is even locked this way. Anyone who has disagrees is called "political", a "single purpose editor" (with the implication of deceit) , "uneducated" or worse. Not one doctor who "reviewed" the BI article caught the actual misquotes. And the slanting of the article by omissions or selective choices is accepted since it is not obvious without further investigation, and generally supports established wisdom.

When I was younger, I trusted doctors because they were doctors. As I grew older, I learned how foolish that was, and so I "trusted but verified". After what I have seen in the last couple of years and most recently on Misplaced Pages, I no longer trust at all. I have seen the very worst of combinations -- arrogance and a closed mind. It is chilling.Jance 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason the request died

For over a week nothing was posted on the request page and only one of the two parties was actually in direct-contact with me (an unfair thing). Therefore, I closed it. It's not your fault. Have a happy ThanksGivHanakaChriKwanzadan! WikieZach| talk 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)