Webster is a verifiable source.  The criticism is as you say relevant to the subject's notability and can be rsourced to reliable secondary sources.  So by your own admission, Esterson's edit conforms to our policies.  But you know what?  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit.  If you think Esterson added something that is not part of Webster's critique, delete it.  But do not fault him for adding Webster's critique.  When you chose not to make an edit that would improve content, and instead attack an editor, you are failing to assume good faith and it makes it look like you care more about stirring up conflict with editors than improving articles.  In this case, improving articles means adding notable views, especially critical ones.  I do not see how you can oppose this.  By the way, I never mentioned my being an administrator.  I am an editor and all editors ought to know and uphold wikipedia policy, including you.    |  Talk