== Obsession == 
 : I just went through the revision history. I must say, you two are obsessed. Every thing about this article must be removed because you don't like it? That's what I see here. In most articles on Wikipedia, content that is not directly sourced is tagged {{fact}} first. Many articles have year-old reference-related tags. But here, you two will not even allow an article to have a chance at improvement? 
 : The quote that was definitive of the topic was removed because it was not relevant? How is it not relevant when it speaks to the core of the article's topic? Is it not relevant because you don't like it? I can't see any other reasoning. 
 : All websites are ultimately self-published. (Ever try to publish something on someone else's site? You can't do it.) I'm not quite sure that "self-published" is a good enough explanation (but it sounds good). As for the removal of the FBI link, I assume you're referring to #13 on Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided; I understand, but believe this to be a good example of Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules, as this link is clearly legitimate and adds significantly to the article (and even enhances your position anyway, if you would use it as a further reference instead of simply scalpel-ing the page). 
 : All I ask is all I have asked before: give the article the chance to grow, receive attention, and maybe even help it instead of constantly cutting anything in it you don't like. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. 
 : Thank you for your continued diligence in enhancing and adding to the total Wikipedia project! 
 :