::I will re-read the whole thread and consider the points made.  That has been my intention, and I've been thinking about how to respond, and driving home from work (of all times to be thinking about Doris Day) a couple of thoughts came together for me, so I will comment on the talk page.  I'll comment here, as you did, about the personal aspect.   Yes, I do see both sides, and I think it can be resolved.  I don't think Wildhartlivie's comment about context contradicts your point of view, so I do not think you're are coming at it from opposite viewpoints.  It would be truer, I think, to say that you are not aligned.   And I am not aligned either.   One phrase that I think is significant from Wildhartlivie's comment is "relevant content should either be incorporated in a meaningful way into the article or removed", and I don't see that as her saying that she wants the content deleted, but rather that it has not yet been presented in a manner that she finds acceptable.   If I'm reading her comment correctly, I think that's a fair stance, and it leaves the door open for further discussion.  

 ::I accept your apology regarding the tag- team comment.  As you may have noticed on the talk page, I said I didn't know quite what to make of it.  It was a jarring comment, in what I thought was an otherwise thoughtful exchange.   I didn't like it, I have to say, but I was more disappointed than offended,  and I was prepared to accept that the meaning I took from it may not have been intended by you.  You've confirmed that, and from my point of view, there is no problem, and it's done with.   I appreciate that you mentioned it here.  It's interesting that there could be that perception of us tag-teaming, and  I understand it.   It may well appear that way, but you've recognised the truth of it, and that is simply that we are friends.  We've edited a lot of same articles under WP:ACTOR and have similar attitudes and senses of humour - it's not surprising that we gravitate towards each other.   On the other hand, there are articles that I care deeply about that Wildhartlivie cares about not at all, so I'm often found at those articles saying my piece, minus Wildhartlivie, and similarly there are numerous articles that she cares deeply about that do not interest me at all.  I'm sure you are correct in saying that Wildhartlivie has alerted me to the renewal of discussion because she believes I may take the same view as she has taken, but considering that I started that discussion, and have commented at length, my opinion is already on record.  Your message also suggests what you expect of me.  There's not a huge difference in expectation really, especially as both of you have a reasonable idea of what I may say.  I don't mind anyone suggesting what they think I should say, as long as they're prepared to take the risk that I might surprise them by not saying what they expected.   I don't see any problem with it, and that's just the way people communicate.   After all, no reasonable person would think "hmmm, that editor really really disagrees with everything I say and is just so hard to get along with.  Better get him into the discussion right away so that I can have my views shot to smithereens."   I mean, who on earth would do that?  Not me, that's for sure.  I'm glad you left this message.   I will comment on the Doris talk page.