Blanking of contributions has to stop 

There is no, zero, justification for the continual blanking of my edits. It is outrageous behavior that needs to cease. There were a few stated objections to past edits (which were overwhelmingly trivial) that have been noted and taken into account. In fact, I am not even reverting. I carefully edited the page slowly in order to make sure that there was no problem with the individual facts. But the goalposts keep shifting. I am in essence being told that simple dislike of my tone is adequate grounds for the mass deletion of everything I do. There is no policy to justify this.

I probably have introduced more sourced material into the article than the vast majority of users, but am nonetheless told I am engaged in "original research". This comes from someone defending the lie about Blix saying it would have just taken a few months to disarm Iraq. It is indeed a lie because he had a list  of unresolved disarmament issues that Iraq needed to provide information about. These were essentially the same issues that UNSCOM spent over seven years trying to resolve without success. 

On 7 March he said Iraq was taking some proactive steps but they did not "necessarily cover all areas of relevance." Hypothetically, they could be resolved in months in the event of proactive cooperation. But on 19 March he made clear that "Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions." So how on earth was it going to be resolved in "months" when, in the last four months, only limited new information had been provided about issues that were supposed to have been resolved within 90 days 12 years ago?

Obviously, any solution should involve adding to, not demolishing, my contributions. But apparently, some people feel that relevant facts cannot be included under any circumstances.