"

You do not need to show any point here. The dispute request and its resolution are open to anyone who wants to read it. It can be found here. You also do not need to insist here on your arguments that have already been refuted by participants in the dispute. The citations that you gave did not comply with the conditions of peer-review, sources were not reliable, and Echevarría's research has been qualified as a ""fringe theory"" (see WP:FRINGE). That is the state of the question and it is now settled and closed. Thank you for editing the old ""New Works"" section; however, your current editing is not complying with the terms of the resolution. The resolution presented by user Noleander said: ""For the Michael Servetus article, my suggestion would be that the ""New"" section, which is rather large now, be compacted down to a one paragraph summary which summarizes Echeverría's claims, and makes it clear they are not endorsed by the majority."" This suggestion was supported by all DRN volunteers who participated in the dispute. Your editing is still leaving excessive space to Echevarría's theory and it should be reduced to just one paragraph. However, footnotes have no particular limitation but they should not include claims that go against the resolution or pretend to ignore it. Your collaboration will be appreciated, of course, but if you fail to comply, I will apply the changes according to the terms of the resolution myself and take any other action that is necessary to preserve the quality and good standing of this article.   "