::::::::Of course it's incoherent, but that's probably more a problem of your remedial reading comprehension abilities than it is a problem of my writing abilities. Anybody with half a brain would be able to figure out what I'm trying to say: my response to rd232 is that he himself undermines the legitimacy of his actions of deleting my additions of criticisms of CounterPunch on its Wikipedia page when he points out, "it's feasible to cover the relevant controversies in a neutral and balanced manner (written as part of the History section, and avoiding unnecessary direct quotation of political opponents' smear phrases" which means that not only are changes (not deletion) of the criticisms doable, but also that the quotes of criticism about CounterPunch need to exist in the first place if you want to make the quotes as balanced as possible. (which again, can't be done if Rd232 is deleting any criticism of CounterPunch in the first place) 
But again, like I said, chances are you probably won't understand what I'm saying because my writing abilities are above and beyond your level of reading comprehension, so it's unlikely you're response will comprise of anything more than ad hominems, rather than addressing the content of my comment.