Since this seems to have blown up spectacularly in my face, I might as well explain my edit. /

I came across this BLP, which hadn't been edited since last year, and noticed that the paragraph about her signing that creationism petition seemed a disjointed and tangential - her signing the petition is unquestionably notable, but it seemed jarring to go straight from discussion of her research to "In February 2006, the New York Times reported... The petition, a two-sentence statement," without stating why she signed the petition or anything. We have an essay about these sorts of articles and the problems with them - WP:COATRACK. I checked out her personal webpage, noticed she was quite open about her religion, googled "Rosalind Picard christian" and found an Atlantic Monthly article that discussed at length why she was a creationist. So I added a sentence about that, making the article flow more smoothly into the signing of the petition. I also removed the second sentence explaining the petition, as I thought it was straying too off-topic.

I discussed this with Raul and can now see the merits of leaving that last sentence in - I think the article as it now stands is acceptable. What's greatly troubling to me is that instead of discussing this and working out a compromise, certain folks refused my invitation to discuss it and instantly jumped on me and started canvassing for a revert war when a few minutes of discussion would have cheerfully resolved the situation instead. (I'm personally as agnostic and anti-creationist as it gets... the only god I'm working in the name of here is WP:BLP.) This really isn't the way Wikipedia should work - assuming everyone is a POV pusher by default is not how we do things around here. ✽