After edit conflict  including with myself. (D'oh.)
The way your reply is phrased leads me to wonder...  but never mind, this could end up as an infinite regression.  Shall we just say, the inferences you draw from my statement are not the ones I recognise as my intent, or as their actual implication, so you making a corresponding complaint seems somewhat ironic.  (You also don't address my question about notification at all.)
My statement was about a) JS's actual notability being predominantly in the area of Creationism, rather than chess (and certain versions of the article veering away from this reality); and b) the motivation of that editor (indeed, every editor, at least to that point) to be writing about him at all.  That's pretty clearly related to his significance as a creationist, and not some interest in writing about about chess more generally.  An implication of a "pretext to promote a creationist agenda" does not appear to correlate with what I said at all.  (What I had in mind was more, increasing similarity to dust-jacket prose, and AA being reluctsnt to acknowledge this about his relative notabilities.)
Your "false comparison" is likewise, nothing like any I was making.  JS is very notable as a Creationist, being a bucketload-selling author on such topics, as well as an internet celeb, which certainly merits an article, which in turn requires some discussion of his prowess  and distinctly lesser notability  as a chess player.  He's not so notable as a chess player that he would ordinarily have an article purely on him as such, and I see no reason to include every possible fact about him as a chess player, out of proportion to actual notability.
At any rate, if your evidence on the RFAr page stands as is, I shall feel compelled to respond to dispute your assertions about my comment.  I was rather hoping to keep out of the whole mess, personally, going as it largely does to "does privacy policy completely trump autobiography concerns", about which I have opinions, but little direct involvement.  I'd like to ask you to withdraw them, or at least, to rephrase.