:::Biosketch: Thank you very much for reaching out to me on my talk page, and for being sincerely concerned about my opinion. The short answer is that I sincerely think that you are wrong in what you say here, and that I have tried very hard to explain why I think that on the article talk page. I've listened carefully to your arguments, and I find them unconvincing. That doesn't mean that I think you are saying these things in bad faith. Quite to the contrary, I am sure that you have thought about this a lot and believe very strongly that you are correct. That's what happens sometimes in editorial disagreements. 

 :::Please do not worry that I somehow feel pressured into making a compromise. I'm actually quite happy to have made that edit, because I value collegiality on Wikipedia, and also, frankly, because I think the whole business about one animal welfare group is no big deal. If my edit created an opportunity for editors to move on, I'm very satisfied. 

 :::On the other hand, I am disappointed with your recent attitude towards me, and with the fact that you did not chose to comment on that here. When you identified alternative sources for that section of the page, I welcomed that information, complimented you on it, and tried to reach out to you to cooperate on improving that part of the page. In fact, I have, pretty much single handedly, done pretty much everything you asked for in my edits. You instead commented in the thread that Griswaldo opened at ORN that I was, in your words, trying to divide and conquer, and you subsequently ridiculed a good faith mistake I made, and said at the article talk page that I was penitent. I'm not the one who should be penitent.