" 

 Counter-Opinion (Clarification by Skyeking regarding the above ""Opinion"" by PresN) 

 S>(PresN)”...inappropriate for Skyeking to take on this review.”-Skyeking's response to: 

 ::::Skyeking is currently and constructively editing a major portion of said article – and due to such, notified others about an “On Hold” situation: 

 ::::::Note 5 (refer here): 
 ::::::“[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.” 

 S>(PresN)”Skyeking, you claim not to be the/a primary editor of the article.....”-Skyeking's response to: 

 ::::PresN’s statement is erroneous and “out-of-context”. 
 ::::Mark Arsten was aware of who the three primary (core) Editors are . 
 ::::And yes, Skyeking had previously welcomed Mark Arsten as a fellow Editor, and as of January 16, 2012 Arsten is surely a primary (core) Editor of the VHEMT Article. 

 S>(PresN)”...but the edit count clearly shows otherwise, you are the most frequent editor of the page...”-Skyeking's response to: 

 ::::In some situations (i.e. Skyeking's), merely counting the number of edits can be misleading (inconclusive / questionable) – and regarding Skyeking; doing such not offer valid evidence, and not a valid explanation about the article's (VHEMT Article Page) edit history. 

 ::::Skyeking’s permanent medical condition precludes him/her from participating at-length in more than one Wikipedia Article – so, on October 13, 2009 (refer here / Skyeking’s first edit as a newcomer) Skyeking chose the VHEMT article due to its lack of oversight (interest) by experienced Editors, rampant vandalism, and the article’s poor phraseology. 

 ::::As a newcomer (October 13, 2009), Skyeking not aware of an “edit counter” (or how to edit properly) so he/she merely started editing ""one-at-a-time"" (edit one word ""Save Page"" / edit one word ""Save Page"" / edit one word ""Save Page"" / so on, and so on, and so on, etc.) – hence, the large number of current day (January 24, 2012) “edit counts” (VHEMT Article Page). 

 S>(PresN)”...Nuujinn, who you above claim to be the primary editor.”-Skyeking's response to: 
 ::::Skyeking’s viewpoint about Nuujinn is that he saved the VHEMT article from deletion (refer here) – took pity* upon Skyeking (newcomer) – and Nuujinn provided rewrite of VHEMT Article(refer here). 

 :::::-*-(Skyeking’s viewpoint, not a statement about the actuality of Nuujinn’s “course of reasoning”.)   

 ::::April 9, 2010(refer here) 
 ::::(Skyeking’s version as a newcomer, October 13, 2009 – April 9, 2010) 

 ::::April 30, 2010(refer here) 
 ::::(Nuujinn’s version – saved the VHEMT Article from deletion) 

 S>(PresN)“You also have been complaining on the [Article] talk page ever since Mark Arsten began changing the article that you dislike his changes – you are certainly not a ‘neutral reviewer’.”-Skyeking's response to: 

 ::::Skyeking offered Arsten a full explanation about his/her viewpoints regarding Arsten’s complete overwrite (draft) of the VHEMT Article .   

 ::::There not any gradual “changes” (quote PresN) – instead, there was a complete overwrite (draft) by Arsten, and he chose to not notify the three primary (core) Editors (Nuujinn / Mitch Ames / Skyeking) about said major edits (refer here) until after-the fact. 

 ::::Once again, Skyeking is currently and constructively editing a major portion of said article – and due to such, notified others about an “On Hold” situation: 

 :::::Note 5 (refer here):  
 :::::""[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."" 

 S>(PresN)“Thirdly, you say that your illness prevents you from putting in the time to say what, precisely, you take issue with in Arsten’s changes – how then do you have the tim