You call my edits "invalid" though you can't identify anything wrong with them, and you say I have the attitude? The article is missing any criticism of Frank. The article discusses cases Frank lost without mentioning that he lost the cases. The article includes a lot of hooey to bury the notable facts about Frank. There is a phony original research section that says Frank has given a bunch of radio interviews but still no section about the only thing that makes Frank notable historically. The article is missing the two longest biographical articles about Frank, perhaps because they're the only ones that don't read like advertisements. The article is missing all of the notable things I added and you reverted as "invalid" without any explanation. Don't tell me that I don't have sources, because every time I try to balance the article you revert it. You still havent told me what sources I added were invalid.