== Harp Twins article == 

 Dear Bgwhite, 

 I hope you are back to 100% now. I also hope you saw the nice message that I sent you, wishing you a speedy recovery, with a painting that I drew just for you. The painting messed up your page format terribly, but my intentions were good.  

 Enough with the insincere formalities! LOL Look, Bgwhite, you know the nightmare that several of us went through with the Harp Twins article. I made many mistakes, partly because I was young and stupid, and to some degree because I did feel as if others provoked me, even though I don't claim to be less responsible than them for that disastrous situation. As you know very well, I'm in the Wikipedia Sons of B*tches Hall of Shame. Anyway, although I did agree to not edit the article (and I complied for a very long time), I'm not a fan of those girls any more, as I told you a few months ago. So at that point I helped Wayzgoose learn how to update the article because I had lost interest (you can see that he has made several edits).  

 However, I simply could not let the creator of the article (Crowdsalesmed) get away with a recent edit. Oh, by the way, I see a brand new edit from that user now. Crowdsalesmed removed the remarks made by Megan Bledsoe in a thesis for a Doctor's degree in Harp Performance. The reason? The observations are not very flattering. But even when I was a fanatical fan of those girls, I actually was very impressed and pleased when Lesser Cartographies found that reference and added it to the article. The fact that the Harp Twins were mentioned in an academic paper shows more notability, in my opinion, and I thought it was a great contribution to the article. Besides, you don't need me to tell you that an article should show different perspectives about the subject, not just the flattering ones. That's the whole point of the NPOV policy, right? Neutrality. Or else we have a promotional article instead of an encyclopedic article. So I reinserted those observations. Megan Bledsoe is an authority on the subject. Notice in the edit description how Crowdsalesmed mischaracterized Megan Bledsoe to get rid of her. After I reinserted the information, Crowdsalesmed removed it again, this time claiming that I had no right to edit the article because you had blocked me. You can see what I wrote in the edit description when I added the reference a second time. But now that contributor has distorted the reference (introduced by Lesser, as I said), to minimize Bledsoe. Instead of "Music theorist and harpist Megan Bledsoe" it reads "Harp player Megan Bledsoe", and instead of "remarks", it now says "remarked in a personal thesis paper". I think that's massive POV going on. "Personal"? That was for the University of Washington!  

 I will let you decide what to do with that, although I know you have much catching up to do with your administrative tasks. But really, I couldn't just watch that happen. It would be immoral to do so. Although I had huge disagreements with Lesser and Duff at the time, I do believe that they were essentially trying to keep the article neutral. Perhaps at some point their feelings towards me got in the way a bit, but they both had valid points for sure. I still think Duff should not have come back to the article after voting to delete it, but he didn't break any rules in that sense. If I had not reinserted the Bledsoe remarks, it might seem as if I merely pretended that I was no longer a Harp Twins fan, to then let the article get out of control little by little, more and more promotional, having sort of gotten Lesser and Duff out of the way. That would have made me look despicable. So yes, I edited the article without your permission, but it was to reestablish neutrality by merely reinserting what Lesser had put in there. I did it twice, but Crowdsalesmed can't handle that observation that Bledsoe wrote. I don't want to fight on that article any more. As I said, I have lost interest and I'm tired of fighting there. I hope you understand. Could you please add that article to your watchlist again so you can keep it balanced? And please check that last edit, which I already explained to you (Bledsoe is being mischaracterized in the article now, which is worse than doing that in the edit description, of course). I just don't think that's right.              

 Many thanks, Bgwhite, and I'm very glad you're back!