@SPECIFICO:: Go contribute. Something. Anything. Expand a stub. Rewrite the grammar on a section of a random article. Even a cursory examination of your edit history is evidence that the only activities you get into are the removal of content you dislike by attacking the sourcing, without ever actually adding or improving sourcing. You then get into endless talk page circlejerk arguments and end up in repetitious dispute resolution procedures.  You are a net drain on wikipedian resources.  I'm not going to play that. You're right in only one thing: the "philosopher" numbered citations are not needed in the lead sentence... that fact is well-established throughout the article.  I only leave them there to appease.  @