User talk:71.239.82.39

WP:Blanking

Please read the guideline linked in this section header; wholesale blanking of IP user talks are discouraged. Tiderolls 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

71.239.82.39 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please review carefully. My apologies beforehand, I will not be littering this argument with WP: statements. I am a content matter expert, and not a Wikilawyer or even longstanding wikipedian. The issue at hand is whether an original large redactive (text-removing) edit by a fly-by Twinkle-responder, if made in error, should then still be allowed as the basis of a 3 reversion block, especially when the intent and substance of the editing of the originally contributing editor (yours truly) are taken into account.

The case: the original edits were done by myself, Le Prof (71.239.82.39), and were scholarly and constructive. At no time did I add unreferenced material; instead, I moved it around, and added "citation needed" tags to unreferenced BLP text that was already in place. I stated my strategy beforehand, in Talk: to allow innocuous, positive, clearly non-libelous text to stand, to allow other editors to add citations that they should have in the first place.

"not dave", responding to a Twinkle ping, did a sledgehammer redactive edit of a large block of the text that I had reorganized and tagged to call for better citations.

Because I reverted this destructive, sledgehammer edit, it is claimed I am guilty of adding unreferenced BLP text. This is specious.

I was returning the article to the status quo, and asking for further discussion before radical redactive changes were made to the pre-existing article. As stated, the large redactive edit removing my work was performed in response to a Twinkle ping that suggested a problem (based on Twinkle's superficial computational assessments). This led to a mistaken perception (as "not dave", the Twinkle-responding, redactive editor has since admitted at the article Talk page), that I was vandalising, or attempting to add unsourced BLP material. Instead of discussing, "not dave" took immediate action, ignoring my extensive article Talk content written prior to my edits, explaining in detail the scope and intent of my editing. When I reverted his immediate action, I did so because it seemed automatic, and was undiscussed prior to his acting. Hence, I called for the this redacting editor to slow down, to consider the whole of the case, including the prior Talk content.

Instead, a second editor was solicited to assist, in a manner that made clear that the aim was to team up and maintain the redactive edit (and not to arrive at a fair assessment of the complete, real issues involved). Again, without discussion or dialog at the article talk page (or any substantive discussion anywhere), these two editors ignored my request for discussion, and simply and almost immediately re-reverted.

In what little dialog appeared (the call at an Admin page, for additional editors to assist in reverting me), I was denigrated as editing from an IP (though I am a longstanding Wikipedia editor).

Now, if you look carefully at the article history, you will see that the text created as a result of "not dave"'s redactive edit, while removing all "citation needed" sentences, also mucked up the article—it removed section headings, removed a section with citations, etc. Bottom line, (1) the sledgehammer redactive edit went too far, and it was to this that I called attention in reverting, asking the pair of editors to slow down and give careful attention to the whole matter, and (2) of all the editors involved, it was only me (Le Prof, 71.239.82.39) that "[d]uring a dispute... first tr[ied] to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus" (see block tag content). I was the only one, at the talk page, trying to get these editors to talk about what was being done. It was the other editors that acted rashly, and forcefully.

If this were all the evidence, it perhaps would be a he-said-she-said, and not be persuasive enough. But note: While this block has gone on, one of the two editors has surreptitiously corrected many of the issues that I called attention to, during this reversion arguement—Neil re-added the section heading ("Education and Red Cross work" section), re-added the text that had some citations there, etc. Hence, Neil has undone, and admitted to undoing the mistakes that made the original "not dave" edit a sledgehammer effort, mistakes whose correction I had pushed during the reversion argument as being critically necessary.

Moreover, rather than being consistent with the original stated motivation for "not dave"'s forceful edits, his enforced strategy of removing all unreferenced BLP material (and therefore removing all remaining sentences in the article lacking citations)—Neil, instead, looked up citations and added them to the newly reintroduced "Education and..." section, so that this text would not have to be deleted.

This adding of citations to the innocuous, positive (non-libelous) BLP text was precisely what I had suggested in the Talk discussion, as a viable alternative strategy to the large scale carte blanche deletion of all preexisting unreferenced innocuous sentences in the article. So, not only have the editors acknowledged that the redactive edit was unacceptable (by correcting its oversteps after having me blocked), they also have accepted my originally suggested strategy, to add references rather than deleting text (and have done this themselves, during this block).

Note as of this hour, the last major paragraph of the article still appears with the "citation needed" tags I introduced; that is, someone is allowing them to remain (consistent with my original suggestions), and is adding in citations, rather than further pursuing the original redactive, sledgehammer approach.

In closing I would simply call attention to Liz's observations at Black Kite's Talk page: the scholarly editor with a commitment to good referencing, and careful discussion of changes before acting is getting slammed here, and has wasted a day of life in the process. The over-reacting Twinkle responder with no prior interest in the article, and zero invested Talk time prior to, to discuss changes, is being supported. This set of superficial judgments flies in the face of many, many other WPs that were and are being ignored, including those calling for respect, and presumption of good faith.

Ultimately, I cannot stand for this. Life is too short, time too precious, principles of fairness too important. The original Administrative reviewer did not look deeply at all. If the system cannot look carefully enough to see that the original redactive edit was admitted as a mistake (as rash by "not dave", and as overstepping, via Neil's cleanup, post hoc edits), and if, in seeing that the original action of the editor was thus, cannot, in light of all the prior-written Talk I gave to these edits, see that these facts should impact the three reversions block matter—if this depth of analysis and fairness are not possible here, than this is not the place for for me to do my public service as a subject matter expert.

If a mistake is made by another editor, a mistake based on Twinkle misperception, a mistake on acting too quickly without due consideration, a mistake that that ignores other editor's good faith and extensive Talk, and a mistake that is admitted in varying ways—does this not impact what is a judicious use of a block, against a fellow editor? Le Prof

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please review carefully. My apologies beforehand, I will not be littering this argument with WP: statements. I am a content matter expert, and not a Wikilawyer or even longstanding wikipedian. The issue at hand is whether an original large redactive (text-removing) edit by a fly-by Twinkle-responder, if made in error, should then still be allowed as the basis of a 3 reversion block, especially when the intent and substance of the editing of the originally contributing editor (yours truly) are taken into account. The case: the original edits were done by myself, Le Prof (71.239.82.39), and were scholarly and constructive. At no time did I add unreferenced material; instead, I moved it around, and added "citation needed" tags to unreferenced BLP text that was already in place. I stated my strategy beforehand, in Talk: to allow innocuous, positive, clearly non-libelous text to stand, to allow other editors to add citations that they should have in the first place. "not dave", responding to a Twinkle ping, did a sledgehammer redactive edit of a large block of the text that I had reorganized and tagged to call for better citations. Because I reverted this destructive, sledgehammer edit, it is claimed I am guilty of adding unreferenced BLP text. This is specious. I was returning the article to the status quo, and asking for further discussion before radical redactive changes were made to the pre-existing article. As stated, the large redactive edit removing my work was performed in response to a Twinkle ping that suggested a problem (based on Twinkle's superficial computational assessments). This led to a ''mistaken'' perception (as "not dave", the Twinkle-responding, redactive editor has since admitted at the article Talk page), that I was vandalising, or attempting to add unsourced BLP material. Instead of discussing, "not dave" took immediate action, ignoring my extensive article Talk content ''written prior to my edits, explaining in detail the scope and intent of my editing''. When I reverted his immediate action, I did so because it seemed automatic, and was undiscussed prior to his acting. ''Hence, I called for the this redacting editor to slow down, to consider the whole of the case, including the prior Talk content.'' Instead, a second editor was solicited to assist, in a manner that made clear that the aim was to team up and maintain the redactive edit (and not to arrive at a fair assessment of the complete, real issues involved). Again, without discussion or dialog at the article talk page (or any substantive discussion anywhere), these two editors ignored my request for discussion, and simply and almost immediately re-reverted. In what little dialog appeared (the call at an Admin page, for additional editors to assist in reverting me), I was denigrated as editing from an IP (though I am a longstanding Wikipedia editor). Now, if you look carefully at the article history, you will see that the text created as a result of "not dave"'s redactive edit, while removing all "citation needed" sentences, also mucked up the article—it removed section headings, removed a section with citations, etc. Bottom line, (1) the sledgehammer redactive edit went too far, and it was to this that I called attention in reverting, asking the pair of editors to slow down and give careful attention to the whole matter, and (2) of all the editors involved, it was only me (Le Prof, 71.239.82.39) that "[d]uring a dispute... first tr[ied] to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus" (see block tag content). ''I was the only one, at the talk page, trying to get these editors to talk about what was being done.'' It was the other editors that acted rashly, and forcefully. If this were all the evidence, it perhaps would be a he-said-she-said, and not be persuasive enough. But note: While this block has gone on, one of the two editors has surreptitiously corrected many of the issues that I called attention to, during this reversion arguement—Neil re-added the section heading ("Education and Red Cross work" section), re-added the text that had some citations there, etc. Hence, Neil has undone, and admitted to undoing the mistakes that made the original "not dave" edit a sledgehammer effort, ''mistakes whose correction I had pushed during the reversion argument as being critically necessary''. Moreover, rather than being consistent with the original stated motivation for "not dave"'s forceful edits, his enforced strategy of removing all unreferenced BLP material (and therefore removing all remaining sentences in the article lacking citations)—Neil, instead, looked up citations and added them to the newly reintroduced "Education and..." section, ''so that this text would not have to be deleted''. ''This adding of citations to the innocuous, positive (non-libelous) BLP text was precisely what I had suggested in the Talk discussion, as a viable alternative strategy to the large scale carte blanche deletion of all preexisting unreferenced innocuous sentences in the article''. So, not only have the editors acknowledged that the redactive edit was unacceptable (by correcting its oversteps after having me blocked), they also have accepted my originally suggested strategy, to add references rather than deleting text (and have done this themselves, during this block). Note as of this hour, the last major paragraph of the article still appears with the "citation needed" tags I introduced; that is, someone is allowing them to remain (consistent with my original suggestions), and is adding in citations, rather than further pursuing the original redactive, sledgehammer approach. In closing I would simply call attention to Liz's observations at Black Kite's Talk page: the scholarly editor with a commitment to good referencing, and careful discussion of changes before acting is getting slammed here, and has wasted a day of life in the process. The over-reacting Twinkle responder with no prior interest in the article, and zero invested Talk time prior to, to discuss changes, is being supported. This set of superficial judgments flies in the face of many, many other WPs that were and are being ignored, including those calling for respect, and presumption of good faith. Ultimately, I cannot stand for this. Life is too short, time too precious, principles of fairness too important. The original Administrative reviewer did not look deeply at all. If the system cannot look carefully enough to see that the original redactive edit was admitted as a mistake (as rash by "not dave", and as overstepping, via Neil's cleanup, post hoc edits), and if, in seeing that the original action of the editor was thus, cannot, in light of all the prior-written Talk I gave to these edits, see that these facts should impact the three reversions block matter—if this depth of analysis and fairness are not possible here, than this is not the place for for me to do my public service as a subject matter expert. If a mistake is made by another editor, a mistake based on Twinkle misperception, a mistake on acting too quickly without due consideration, a mistake that that ignores other editor's good faith and extensive Talk, and a mistake that is admitted in varying ways—does this not impact what is a judicious use of a block, against a fellow editor? Le Prof |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please review carefully. My apologies beforehand, I will not be littering this argument with WP: statements. I am a content matter expert, and not a Wikilawyer or even longstanding wikipedian. The issue at hand is whether an original large redactive (text-removing) edit by a fly-by Twinkle-responder, if made in error, should then still be allowed as the basis of a 3 reversion block, especially when the intent and substance of the editing of the originally contributing editor (yours truly) are taken into account. The case: the original edits were done by myself, Le Prof (71.239.82.39), and were scholarly and constructive. At no time did I add unreferenced material; instead, I moved it around, and added "citation needed" tags to unreferenced BLP text that was already in place. I stated my strategy beforehand, in Talk: to allow innocuous, positive, clearly non-libelous text to stand, to allow other editors to add citations that they should have in the first place. "not dave", responding to a Twinkle ping, did a sledgehammer redactive edit of a large block of the text that I had reorganized and tagged to call for better citations. Because I reverted this destructive, sledgehammer edit, it is claimed I am guilty of adding unreferenced BLP text. This is specious. I was returning the article to the status quo, and asking for further discussion before radical redactive changes were made to the pre-existing article. As stated, the large redactive edit removing my work was performed in response to a Twinkle ping that suggested a problem (based on Twinkle's superficial computational assessments). This led to a ''mistaken'' perception (as "not dave", the Twinkle-responding, redactive editor has since admitted at the article Talk page), that I was vandalising, or attempting to add unsourced BLP material. Instead of discussing, "not dave" took immediate action, ignoring my extensive article Talk content ''written prior to my edits, explaining in detail the scope and intent of my editing''. When I reverted his immediate action, I did so because it seemed automatic, and was undiscussed prior to his acting. ''Hence, I called for the this redacting editor to slow down, to consider the whole of the case, including the prior Talk content.'' Instead, a second editor was solicited to assist, in a manner that made clear that the aim was to team up and maintain the redactive edit (and not to arrive at a fair assessment of the complete, real issues involved). Again, without discussion or dialog at the article talk page (or any substantive discussion anywhere), these two editors ignored my request for discussion, and simply and almost immediately re-reverted. In what little dialog appeared (the call at an Admin page, for additional editors to assist in reverting me), I was denigrated as editing from an IP (though I am a longstanding Wikipedia editor). Now, if you look carefully at the article history, you will see that the text created as a result of "not dave"'s redactive edit, while removing all "citation needed" sentences, also mucked up the article—it removed section headings, removed a section with citations, etc. Bottom line, (1) the sledgehammer redactive edit went too far, and it was to this that I called attention in reverting, asking the pair of editors to slow down and give careful attention to the whole matter, and (2) of all the editors involved, it was only me (Le Prof, 71.239.82.39) that "[d]uring a dispute... first tr[ied] to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus" (see block tag content). ''I was the only one, at the talk page, trying to get these editors to talk about what was being done.'' It was the other editors that acted rashly, and forcefully. If this were all the evidence, it perhaps would be a he-said-she-said, and not be persuasive enough. But note: While this block has gone on, one of the two editors has surreptitiously corrected many of the issues that I called attention to, during this reversion arguement—Neil re-added the section heading ("Education and Red Cross work" section), re-added the text that had some citations there, etc. Hence, Neil has undone, and admitted to undoing the mistakes that made the original "not dave" edit a sledgehammer effort, ''mistakes whose correction I had pushed during the reversion argument as being critically necessary''. Moreover, rather than being consistent with the original stated motivation for "not dave"'s forceful edits, his enforced strategy of removing all unreferenced BLP material (and therefore removing all remaining sentences in the article lacking citations)—Neil, instead, looked up citations and added them to the newly reintroduced "Education and..." section, ''so that this text would not have to be deleted''. ''This adding of citations to the innocuous, positive (non-libelous) BLP text was precisely what I had suggested in the Talk discussion, as a viable alternative strategy to the large scale carte blanche deletion of all preexisting unreferenced innocuous sentences in the article''. So, not only have the editors acknowledged that the redactive edit was unacceptable (by correcting its oversteps after having me blocked), they also have accepted my originally suggested strategy, to add references rather than deleting text (and have done this themselves, during this block). Note as of this hour, the last major paragraph of the article still appears with the "citation needed" tags I introduced; that is, someone is allowing them to remain (consistent with my original suggestions), and is adding in citations, rather than further pursuing the original redactive, sledgehammer approach. In closing I would simply call attention to Liz's observations at Black Kite's Talk page: the scholarly editor with a commitment to good referencing, and careful discussion of changes before acting is getting slammed here, and has wasted a day of life in the process. The over-reacting Twinkle responder with no prior interest in the article, and zero invested Talk time prior to, to discuss changes, is being supported. This set of superficial judgments flies in the face of many, many other WPs that were and are being ignored, including those calling for respect, and presumption of good faith. Ultimately, I cannot stand for this. Life is too short, time too precious, principles of fairness too important. The original Administrative reviewer did not look deeply at all. If the system cannot look carefully enough to see that the original redactive edit was admitted as a mistake (as rash by "not dave", and as overstepping, via Neil's cleanup, post hoc edits), and if, in seeing that the original action of the editor was thus, cannot, in light of all the prior-written Talk I gave to these edits, see that these facts should impact the three reversions block matter—if this depth of analysis and fairness are not possible here, than this is not the place for for me to do my public service as a subject matter expert. If a mistake is made by another editor, a mistake based on Twinkle misperception, a mistake on acting too quickly without due consideration, a mistake that that ignores other editor's good faith and extensive Talk, and a mistake that is admitted in varying ways—does this not impact what is a judicious use of a block, against a fellow editor? Le Prof |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please review carefully. My apologies beforehand, I will not be littering this argument with WP: statements. I am a content matter expert, and not a Wikilawyer or even longstanding wikipedian. The issue at hand is whether an original large redactive (text-removing) edit by a fly-by Twinkle-responder, if made in error, should then still be allowed as the basis of a 3 reversion block, especially when the intent and substance of the editing of the originally contributing editor (yours truly) are taken into account. The case: the original edits were done by myself, Le Prof (71.239.82.39), and were scholarly and constructive. At no time did I add unreferenced material; instead, I moved it around, and added "citation needed" tags to unreferenced BLP text that was already in place. I stated my strategy beforehand, in Talk: to allow innocuous, positive, clearly non-libelous text to stand, to allow other editors to add citations that they should have in the first place. "not dave", responding to a Twinkle ping, did a sledgehammer redactive edit of a large block of the text that I had reorganized and tagged to call for better citations. Because I reverted this destructive, sledgehammer edit, it is claimed I am guilty of adding unreferenced BLP text. This is specious. I was returning the article to the status quo, and asking for further discussion before radical redactive changes were made to the pre-existing article. As stated, the large redactive edit removing my work was performed in response to a Twinkle ping that suggested a problem (based on Twinkle's superficial computational assessments). This led to a ''mistaken'' perception (as "not dave", the Twinkle-responding, redactive editor has since admitted at the article Talk page), that I was vandalising, or attempting to add unsourced BLP material. Instead of discussing, "not dave" took immediate action, ignoring my extensive article Talk content ''written prior to my edits, explaining in detail the scope and intent of my editing''. When I reverted his immediate action, I did so because it seemed automatic, and was undiscussed prior to his acting. ''Hence, I called for the this redacting editor to slow down, to consider the whole of the case, including the prior Talk content.'' Instead, a second editor was solicited to assist, in a manner that made clear that the aim was to team up and maintain the redactive edit (and not to arrive at a fair assessment of the complete, real issues involved). Again, without discussion or dialog at the article talk page (or any substantive discussion anywhere), these two editors ignored my request for discussion, and simply and almost immediately re-reverted. In what little dialog appeared (the call at an Admin page, for additional editors to assist in reverting me), I was denigrated as editing from an IP (though I am a longstanding Wikipedia editor). Now, if you look carefully at the article history, you will see that the text created as a result of "not dave"'s redactive edit, while removing all "citation needed" sentences, also mucked up the article—it removed section headings, removed a section with citations, etc. Bottom line, (1) the sledgehammer redactive edit went too far, and it was to this that I called attention in reverting, asking the pair of editors to slow down and give careful attention to the whole matter, and (2) of all the editors involved, it was only me (Le Prof, 71.239.82.39) that "[d]uring a dispute... first tr[ied] to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus" (see block tag content). ''I was the only one, at the talk page, trying to get these editors to talk about what was being done.'' It was the other editors that acted rashly, and forcefully. If this were all the evidence, it perhaps would be a he-said-she-said, and not be persuasive enough. But note: While this block has gone on, one of the two editors has surreptitiously corrected many of the issues that I called attention to, during this reversion arguement—Neil re-added the section heading ("Education and Red Cross work" section), re-added the text that had some citations there, etc. Hence, Neil has undone, and admitted to undoing the mistakes that made the original "not dave" edit a sledgehammer effort, ''mistakes whose correction I had pushed during the reversion argument as being critically necessary''. Moreover, rather than being consistent with the original stated motivation for "not dave"'s forceful edits, his enforced strategy of removing all unreferenced BLP material (and therefore removing all remaining sentences in the article lacking citations)—Neil, instead, looked up citations and added them to the newly reintroduced "Education and..." section, ''so that this text would not have to be deleted''. ''This adding of citations to the innocuous, positive (non-libelous) BLP text was precisely what I had suggested in the Talk discussion, as a viable alternative strategy to the large scale carte blanche deletion of all preexisting unreferenced innocuous sentences in the article''. So, not only have the editors acknowledged that the redactive edit was unacceptable (by correcting its oversteps after having me blocked), they also have accepted my originally suggested strategy, to add references rather than deleting text (and have done this themselves, during this block). Note as of this hour, the last major paragraph of the article still appears with the "citation needed" tags I introduced; that is, someone is allowing them to remain (consistent with my original suggestions), and is adding in citations, rather than further pursuing the original redactive, sledgehammer approach. In closing I would simply call attention to Liz's observations at Black Kite's Talk page: the scholarly editor with a commitment to good referencing, and careful discussion of changes before acting is getting slammed here, and has wasted a day of life in the process. The over-reacting Twinkle responder with no prior interest in the article, and zero invested Talk time prior to, to discuss changes, is being supported. This set of superficial judgments flies in the face of many, many other WPs that were and are being ignored, including those calling for respect, and presumption of good faith. Ultimately, I cannot stand for this. Life is too short, time too precious, principles of fairness too important. The original Administrative reviewer did not look deeply at all. If the system cannot look carefully enough to see that the original redactive edit was admitted as a mistake (as rash by "not dave", and as overstepping, via Neil's cleanup, post hoc edits), and if, in seeing that the original action of the editor was thus, cannot, in light of all the prior-written Talk I gave to these edits, see that these facts should impact the three reversions block matter—if this depth of analysis and fairness are not possible here, than this is not the place for for me to do my public service as a subject matter expert. If a mistake is made by another editor, a mistake based on Twinkle misperception, a mistake on acting too quickly without due consideration, a mistake that that ignores other editor's good faith and extensive Talk, and a mistake that is admitted in varying ways—does this not impact what is a judicious use of a block, against a fellow editor? Le Prof |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Hint

Hint, massive wall of text means less admins will be willing to read it and therefore deal with your request; I suggest condensing your unblock request. [stwalkerster|talk] 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Another issue with the system: we live in a twitter- and text-driven millennium, where fairness is deemed readily accessible through fly-by inspections. Nonsense. It was such an action that led to the initial firestorm. If people cannot read a page to see if an earlier judgment was capricious, then this is a statement about the system, more than those being impacted by it. Text will stand as it is; my lost day and anguish are worth one page, and five minutes of someone's time, or this place is not worth anything at all. Le Prof

Perhaps call this to Liz's attention (see Black Kite's Talk page). She seems to be fair-minded, and perhaps could wrangle an Admin who does not view touch-and-go contributions, and counting edits, as the highest measure of good here. Le Prof

---