It's clear that TheOldJacobite is doing nothing more than what he accuses others of... E.g. Not adhering to Wiki policy, constantly breaching anti-reversion rules and generally trolling to try and start editing wars with new editors. His latest revert - after admin decision - is clearly spiteful vandalism.
1) he left the article in an unreferenced state for months, and made no attempt to clear them up or remove them.
2) he took exception to an entry that was referenced properly, including a reference to the BBC - the BBC being a reference source for other items on this page, yet hypocrisy reared its head and TheOldJacobite failed to acknowledge, only finally accepting when having the nonsense of his illogical inconsistent application of policy pointed out.
2a) he also claimed that the newspaper source included wants notable enough despite having a readership level that warranted its own actual entry in Wikipedia - a newspaper that has been published for over 100 years.
3) he continually reverts the repair of the included entry, which meets ALL Wiki policies. These are reverted accordingly by me as they breach no rules but simply have some personal issue with TheOldJacobite. Maybe TheOldJacobite thinks he owns the page. Who knows what motive lies behind the behaviour?
4) He then summons up 'help' from a sock-buddy who also removes it and then threatens me with blocking because he can't gets his own way. That editor has no and rights so simply reverts to threats and bravado against a new user. it should be noted that Sjo has been previously warned on his page about treating new editors with contempt and warning him to stop simply removing new edits, so a behaviour pattern that is common to both of them.
5) TheOldJacobite then has me referred to admin for alleged vandalism - no action is taken. TheOldJacobite also tries to make me out as some sort of vandal purely because I have an IP rather than a full username...this is just childish diversion tactics,
6) TheOldJacobite requests the page is locked - no action is taken as admins clearly don't agree. If anything it should be locked against him reverting a totally acceptable entry.
7) Electric Wombat (admin) reviews the entry and determines it's good for inclusion and asks all to stop the edit war. I agree but would like to see an equal admonishment made to TheOldJacobite and Sjo for their arbitrary editing, non equitable application of policy and the gang-up bullying mentality against a new user. But, I won't hold my breath as I've seen all of TheOldJacobite's and Sjo's disciplinary record and it's clear that nothing really gets done about trolls like these so-called [editors] who simply delight on playing judge and jury and clearly think they own Wikipedia.
8) Despite Electric Wombat's decision of inclusion, TheOldJacobite again reverts the entry.  this is clearly against strict Wiki rules about reverting after an admin decision has been made. I wonder if ThOldJacobite will be blocked temporarily for sticking two fingers up at the admin team?
9) I have now applied the admin decision and reverted it back to what it was before TheOldJacobite vandalised it yet again.
10) I am wondering if Wikipedia is broken beyond repair when it allows personal and prejudicial views of editors like TheOldJacobite and Sjo to interfere with the mission statement of Wikipedia to create a globally-contributed knowledge base.