Ahh, well. I understand the deletion of the CyPhaCon article, since it was only a first year event. I'm not happy about it, but I understand it. However, it is my intention to revisit this issue, once CyPhaCon completes it's second event next year.Freonfreakone (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've recently run into a problem with editing the Convention du Lac article. Apparently, my extensive participation in two of the three events (making me VERY knowledgeable of what occurred both in public and private, with a bare minimum of conjecture), and contributions to expanding and fleshing out the article are considered somehow disruptive; a user or users (all of whom I suspect are user jtoney5872) are continually 'undo'ing my improvements, without discussion or compromise. These users refuse to discuss WHY they're doing what they're doing; I'M open to correction and/or compromise, if they'd just respond to my solicitations on the Convention du Lac 'Talk' page. But no dice. So, I'm thinking of waiting until they make one or two more 'undo's, then requesting some sort of arbitration from other users or the Admins...a seemingly complicated process on the surface, but I don't know how else to resolve the problem.Freonfreakone (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

After due consideration, I've decided to withdraw, at least for now, from editing the Convention du Lac article, and have reverted it back to it's previous changes. Thanks to an objective analysis from uninvolved users, I see that I'm 'too close' to the situation, not to mention unprepared, to properly render a neutrally reasonable edit of any bulk. Sucks to be a novice. I intend to assemble verifiable sources to back up any further edits I may make, as was recommended. It's a complicated, convoluted process (for me, anyway), but it's my hope that my efforts will eventually serve to make the article more robust and factual, without compromising it under Wiki standards.