== Intgr is responsible for cancer, among other things ..... == 

 "Perhaps you would like to blame me for cancer, world hunger and global warming, too? )" 

 If the shoe fits ..... 

 Stupidity, in general, is both incurable and boundless. 

 "I honestly cannot see how my placing the tag there would stop school kids from using Wikipedia as a reference." 

 I honestly believe you cannot see it. That, of course, is my point. 

 "In any case, edit warring or attacking people is not the way to solve problems;" 

 At this point all three entries are not improved. At no cost to you, but hours of costs to me. 

 So, maybe the way to solve problems is for you and Petr to remove your fingers from the keyboards? 

 "'and it is deleted enough times, there is a bona-fide dispute (i.e., the Roman Pontiff may in fact be a Sugar Plum Fairy).'" 

 "I am not going to address this straw man." 

 Do you know what, in logic, a "straw man argument" is? I thought not. 

 It is not a straw man argument. Neither you nor Petr have, to this point, identified a *single* fact in contention. No, without the slightest understanding of the topic, and without bothering to read the discussion, the two of you have added about four hours of work to my efforts without anything to show for it. That’s because I’m doing the work and you’re doing ..... well, nothing that adds to the entries. 

 "Or maybe your arrogance is just a result of your overblown ego. One would seriously expect a man of your credentials to be more civil.  intgr  " 

 For the first six hours of dealing with Wikepediasts like yourself, I think I did a pretty good job of controlling it. 

 I figured, since I was intimately involved in the period (1970-82) and have an extensive reference library, I could do a fair job of cleaning up and referencing "synthetic oil". But then the attacks from the www.bobistheoilguy.com Luddites began. And spread to the "Mobil" entry, and thence to "Mobil 1". Between reading the interminable posts at www.bobistheoilguy.com, and responding to Wikepediasts like yourself, Petr, and others, and undoing the vandalism of unsupported claptrap, at my normal billing rate for consulting I’ve shot over $1,500 and have not one bad entry but three. 

 So, I quit. I will, by e-mail, share with Petr this exchange. If one, or both of you, can point to me the *facts* that are actually in dispute, I’ll take this one last shot at providing you the *facts* that should dispel any notion of "controversy". 

 If one, or both of you, can’t provide a simple short list in simple English of the *facts* that are in dispute - and let us be clear that if there are *not* opposing *facts* that support *mutually* *exclusive* conclusions, there is *no* dispute,  that answers the question as to why the tag and reversed edits are inappropriate. 

 This won’t even require that either of you read the discussions, which you clearly haven’t. 

 If neither of you respond, but you continue this annoying behavior, I’ll consider it an invitation to let Wikipedia continue to deteriorate into the internet equivalent of a graffiti wall, and wash my hands of it. 

 Put up, or shut up.