I've tried to be reasonable, you're offensive to me and give long-winded lectures on things that never happened? I accept that my first edit was a bit gung-ho. It was criticised, reverted and I was told not to do it again. I learned that isn't how things are done here and since then have worked my hardest to do things properly, but the article was so badly biased that it has to be revised.

There are millions of people in the world that will read this article as their introduction to the beliefs of millions of others. Frankly, the matter is one of such importance that it goes beyond style issues, and again I think your style edits were very good ones. It is a core goal of Wikipedia to provide accurate information, it a secondary goal to provide it with style. My only mistake, assuming your edit is a good one, was to use the wrong syntax so as to make the headers too bold, giving undue weight. A minor mistake to correct, as you did for us in a few minutes. This is the nature of Wikipedia; easy to make mistakes, but easy to correct them.

The sites I deleted from the external links, as you will see if you go to through the history a little and check them were all against guidelines: One didn't work, the site's html was screwed up, obviously delete it. Four of the top five links were to sites that promote Khalifa's unique claim that the the Quran has a mathematical structure based on the number 19 and that this proves two of the Quran's verses are man-made. These sites are obvious Khalifa followers, one has USI copyright assertions in the footnotes? Two or three more were just peoples own POV sites with free hosts and all that, nothing of any stature whatsoever. These were removed so that there is one link to the 19ers main site, and all the other links that were any good at all. The only other change I made was to add descriptions in parenthesis so people would know what each link actually led to.