"the real discussion is not about m/z or m/q but it is about wether the mass-to-charge ratio is a physical unit of dimension mass/charge or wether it is a dimensionless unit.  As someone who is interested in physics you may understand that I have real problems seeing a dimensionless m/z on the mass-to-charge ratio page.  It is the equivalent to have, for example, the "electronic charge" in the article of the "electric current".
This is the problem that I think you're either misunderstanding or too stubborn about your POV to accept. Whether or not you want to discuss the usage of m/z it still is accepted by IUPAC, which btw is not in any way a minority but reflects majority opinion amongst chemists. The wiki entries on notations, standards, units and the like should reflect nothing other than what bodies like IUPAP, IUPAC, and ISO, etc. deicide. I think you'll at least concede that your particular view about m/z is far more of a minority position than that of IUPAC's? Because I agree with you, I said that you should be allowed the opportunity to add a brief explanation of why there may be confusion, along with a discussion of other units, and to add an external link to any reputable journal where there has been a discussion of the problems of m/z. The most recent edit still looks like an attempt to completely discredit the concept of m/z altogether, which is still your POV.
Please keep the rest of the discussion about this mediation on the mediation page.