Aprilgem... Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying here. I'm not a horrible writer, and yet nearly every portion of the article was changed. It's less my work than the editors. Here is another example, mind you this is from the initial onset of the publication... I'm not going to point out every detail, as it would take all night and get me into trouble... My original sentence "For example, dome lighting (the simulation of global illumination), can be created through the use of spherical arrays of omni-lights." Was changed to: "For example, Dome lighting, is a simulation of global illumination. Dome Lighting should not be confused with radiosity because it is not the same thing, yet a similar effect can be created through the use of light domes." Let it also be known that they added a sentence before it that also used "dome lighting" in it.... repeating dome lighting 4 times in a row.. And then using it as a title directly below it. After that my sentence: "Fortunately, Bryce allows us to bypass this using either True Ambiance or Blurry Reflections." Was changed to: "Fortunately, bryce allows us to check a box for either 'true ambience' or 'blurry reflections'." It's not about checking box, it's about utilizing those aspects of bryce... Fortunately, bryce allows us to check those boxes, so that we can use those options to our advantage. It has nothing to do with checking the freaking box. The entire section about using two booleaned spheres for the sky dome was taken out.. This is a necessity when using glass as a subject. It's not even my work! They didn't shorten it. They didn't Simplify it. They chopped it up into mutiple sentences. They made multiple repetetive sentences out of my original work. And I hope you get that I am just being humerous with the above sentences... Furthermore, the subtitles of the images were removed, and yet they were still refered to as 'image 1' - 'image 7' I think I allready mentioned this, however, nearly every transitional phrase in the piece was removed, making it choppy. This was done dispite the fact that I was under the top length for the article. On the contrary, I admit they did indeed fix my gramatical errors in some sentences, but at what cost? As the article wanes I see the editor's fingerprints less and less, however, it's the beginning that drives me up the wall. I didn't post this to be criticized aprilgem, I merely wanted to state that the work in that article is not my own and should therefore not be connected to me in any way. I thank you for your time and hope that you choose not to belittle how I choose to present my ideas any further. Good day.