:Thank you.  It means a lot to be called a grade A Wikipedian, and it means even more to hear that I successfully showed you a new angle.  Wikipedia has been so very expansive for me, and it is very gratifying to help contribute to it being that way for others. 
 :I have put a comment on the RFC, but I've decided to try to focus on the article rather than his behavior, because to be honest, I've been more focused on the article than his behavior to the extent that I don't think I could honestly say I know if he is being railroaded or not (though I have my suspicions). 
 :I really enjoyed our collaboration on that image.  There is a different image there today, and the text is far better than anyone could have come up with on their own.  We all made something great together.  And we gave everybody's views a fair shake. 
 :I think in this charged environment, possibly because of NCdave, a double standard is being applied.  There are more changes that need to be made to the article to make it NPOV.  But any attempt to report the Schindler's POV is met with all kinds of unfair excuses, "The article is too big; that would be bloat," or "That poll is unscientific."  Pardon me, but it is NEVER up to Wikipedia to decide truth.  We contextualize and report in a factual manner.  Most of the time when people are objecting, their objections should be included in the article along with the material they are objecting to, rather than removing the material.  And that is exactly what we did for that image, and it worked out great.  And this is a double-standard; we don't get to ask the same questions or raise the same issues with the Michael Schiavo POV. 
 :I just want all the chaos to die down so I can get in the article and help make it better without having my changes reverted on sight by people who don't want to take time to think or discuss, and people who don't even comment on what they are doing in the edit summary.  I want each view on this subject to get a fair shake. 
 :NPOV is a beautiful "treaty," to me.  It is our international law in the midst of anarchy.  Please forgive me if I gush a bit, but I honestly think the NPOV policy is one of the most impressive innovations in human history and ranks up alongside historic documents like the Magna Carta and United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  The amazing thing is that it is something we can all agree on.  People who DO have a point of view can still make unbiased, neutral edits that will be acceptable to the other side. 
 :If we forsake NPOV, if we allow the Michael Schiavo side to carry the day and dictate truth for the article, we have done an extraordinary disservice to the Wikipedia community and to the Wikipedia audience: all of humanity. 
 :If we have to kick people out (from either or both sides) to make editing the article peaceful enough, then it ought to be swift and certain.  (I think Wikipedia is transitioning on this ... looking forward to days when this policy is clearer.)  I'm a believer in instant no-questions asked bans of increasing duration (from one week to permanent) for violations of the three-revert rule.  I have a feeling NCdave has probably violated that one many times; we probably could have solved this a long time ago. 
 :There's some basic decency standards we need to ask all sides to follow: the three-revert rule, required explanations of changes in the edit summary rather than reverting and hoping the other side won't notice, and working for consensus in the talk page.  If you could convince some of the people you know editing this article to hold to these higher standards, I would be so appreciative, and Wikipedia would be so much better.  I've learned that I need to pick small changes (like the picture), start discussion on the talk page, propose my changes, work for consensus, and then watch like a hawk and call people on it when they revert my changes without commenting or without discussing.  I think it really surprises people and helps build my case when they see me editing conscientiously, wanting to discuss rather than wanting to participate in a silent edit war.  And we can all expose each other to more than we would have considered otherwise, and make Wikipedia something better than any one faction could have done on it's own. 
 :I'm in contact with some of the guys from the blogs and have tried to encourage the higher-standard behavior.  And I don't know about fly-by-night editors who might pop up and replace the entire article in a single blow, but several have listened to me and, I hope, are working on holding to that higher standard.  We can all recognize and agree (eventually) on how to word an article so that it will be acceptable to all points of view, but we have to be talking and listening to do it.  And we gain so much from the experience. ) 
 :Thanks again.