:::::::::I did write that I thought that the revised quote was "much, much better", but "better" is, of course, a relative term.  And once again, when you initially restored it, you restored it to a highly prominent area at the beginning of the article, even after admitting it didn't belong there.  Not sure if it rises to the level of "vandalism", but at the very least, it's enough to make one question your motives here, don't you think?