December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you now if you and Elonka think my edits were biased or NPOV, then we can discuss your thoughts toward building consensus on that new, untagged topic. However, you have not listed bias or NPOV, you have listed two "OR" statements. Well, what they really amount to is misplaced clauses. We could easily delete "to solicit donors" and "to assist Elder in the process" and move them elsewhere, or move the footnotes and add other footnotes. But isn't it interesting that if that had been Elonka's concern, she could have deleted just the clauses instead of the whole sentences? Have you read User:Kazvorpal#Truth, not silence?
Also, as I will point out at AFD, the simple facts are that this usage was created entirely by Paul supporters, it received prominence solely due to Paul supporters, and upon reaching prominence it has been used by six campaigns. Your description of Paul's placement is precisely proper weighting for these facts. Also, I did not admit bias, as my refactor above makes clearer.
But most important, I thought third opinions were a form of mediation. I need you to answer questions (1) and (2) just above so that I know whether this process should continue or what other process I should invoke to build consensus. Elonka and I have seriously different intentions for this article, and that difference should be worked out by discussion. I have politely refused to encourage edit warring, to the article's detriment, and to fulfillment of my warning that Elonka's actions improperly encouraged AFD. Since you have also voted for deletion, I am having trouble understanding the meaning of "third opinions" and your place in this discussion; please answer those two questions.  07:34, 4