It takes two to tango, so if an edit war starts (I hope not), you will be party to it.  
 I did made it clear that I have no intention of starting it and hence stopped editing the article 
 earlier, and placed a tag. But it must be made absolutely clear that if you make statements that I consider WP:OR,  
 I can per policy, tag them as such. So my edit to place a tag was totally per policy and 
 was indeed necessary to tell the reader that I see your view as WP:OR. Very simple, very straightforward. 

 Two other notes here: First, is certainly not the case that F. F. Bruce wrote about the issues only in the 1950s as you assume. His two books that I refer to were later editions of the original and a simple look through them clearly shows that Bruce refers to other scholars who wrote in the late 1980s. A key item Bruce refers to is, of course, Smallwood's 1968 paper Consules suffecti of A.D. 55 in in Historia, XVII, 1968. Other examples of late references are throughout the book, e.g. on page 249 he refers to a Hemer paper published in 1985 and on page 476 to a book published in 1987. And his other book also uses multiple references from 1987. I am always careful to use recent scholarship. So the Bruce books that I use are recent scholarsip by all standards that Wikipedia references use. 

 Secondly, given that you have placed very heavy reliance on Slingerland's views Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 112, No. 2, Summer, 1993 on "Paul and Gallio"  is of note. Here Murphy-O'Conner directly states that Slingerland failed to check on the work of Seneca and hence his wider date range is unacceptable. He states:  

 :* one can answer with a significant degree of probability because of a piece of evidence that Slingerland did not checks. Seneca reports concerning his brother, "When, in Achaia, he [Gallio] began to feel feverish, he immediately took ship." 

 So the issue of Seneca and Slingerland's failure to consider it has been discussed in the Journal of Biblical Literature where Slingerland published his views. I should certainly add to the article, now that I am just getting started on improving it. 

 Referring to Pliny, Murphy-O'Conner states that the impression that Gallio was a "fussy hypochndriac" is confirmed by Pliny. Murphy-O'Conner also states in the same critique that Slingerland failed to take the winter storms into account, etc. So the issue of Seneca's report is not my invention, but is widely discussed in scholarly circles inclluding the journal where Sligerland published, and is hence totally relevant to the subject and the article. 

 I hope this helps you realize the shortcomings in Slingerland's views. 

 In any case, I will explain things below, but in view of prior posts, I must again caution you not to use profanities when you respond to my points below.