No bias? Ha. Let's take a look at your logic for a second. At one point on the Obama talk page, you tell a user (Byetebear) - in response to his proposal to expand the Wright information - that he "[is] going to need to find a couple sources to back each of those parts up." Then, when the sources are acquired, you respond "there is already a mention of Wright and that there is/was a controversy surrounding him, including a link. So the question now is, you the editor/proposer, need to state the reason for enlarging and expanding the portion." My question to you, Brotherjr: Why did you tell him to go get the sources if you already knew that you were going to contest expanding the portion on Wright anyway? Why didn't you just be up front about it? The answer, of course, is that you're EXTREMELY biased and are never, under any circumstances whatsoever, going to consent to expanding the Wright connection to reflect the actual, accurate connection between the two (and the significant amount of time that was devoted to it by the mainstream media) that a truly non-biased article would reflect. Fellow Wikipedians beware. This guy OOZES of bias.