: Ed - I suspect you're just the messenger here. Either way, my "pursuit" is of an accurate, balanced article which is a subset of simple truth (not WP:TRUTH), though of course that real "truth" is complex. The "truth" presented by the other editor was quite bluntly a screed usingthis website to further a political agenda. There is no fair reviewer who would look at what i've done with that article and see it as anything but a vast improvement when it comes to research, accuracy, and fairness. On the other side there was an editor who repeatedly lied and distorted the contents of sources (even in the book from the vanity press) in such a way that "them" looked bad and "we" looked good or like unfairly maligned victims. That's what needs handling. The article as it stood was one big lie  and he continued to reinsert false information until, apparently, I tripped over this rule. If that's where the priorities are at, yes, I won't be here very long. I was really only engaging this one issue to see if mature, quality work could be carried on here by people of sound editorial judgment. Not to worry, I won't suffer being asked to pretend my editorial judgment is equal to someone who made six errors of fact in his first three sentences very long. As a courtesy I explained precisely what I was doing on the talk page (and i think fairly irrefutably). Since it's been... crickets. I don't need help from some other page telling me that the sky is blue. That would be a demeaning waste of time.