"
Cybershore, after carefully looking over your additions to the article (even with my changes to your grammer), I see that they are redundant and add nothing, while making some things less clear.  I oppose their addition.  

What additions specifically you're talking about (so I can adjust or respond)?
Why, again this double standard behavior related just to one part; since, I answered all the objections one by one, while the seriously and gravely accusation made ​​up by me, and proved, repeatedly, throughout this year and a half about spurious quote remains ignored???

And Please answer this time:

1) Is the spurioness justifiable under any circunstances?2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?
Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???3) Which group of honest editors ...who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it?' ''
  "