"

I appreciate this.  I reverted  with just that 1 sentence 1 source addition.  I then requested to discuss it at the Talk page.  Question  So should I have first discussed it at the Talk page, and then asked it was acceptable for the article?  I thought on wikipedia I'm free to add something, and then discuss it.  Also, they reverted me.  I added the simple 1 sentence, and they reverted me 5+ times.  I'm not sure why the focus is on me warring with them, because they reverted me.  Could you clarify this?  Again, I added the simple sentence and national source (Outside Magazine) and I then asked to discuss it, and they reverted it 5+ times.  MONGO cited reasons such as the person is deceased, that the person took ""only 1 pill"" of the prescription steroid (Outside article is on the use of steroids for performance enhancing on Everest), he commented in the Talk section that I should not be against the mountaineer, etc.  These all seem very unacceptable.  Highly biased journalism.  Almost laughably so.  And he didn't care to discuss it.  Fact:  The climber was reveled by Outside to have taken it, the Outside article is on ""Climbers Little Helper"", subtitled ""a dangerous trend in mountaineering: rampant use of performance-enhancing drugs, particularly the powerful steroid dexamethasone.""
http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Climbings-Little-Helper.html
Section on Kellogg is 30+ paragraphs down the article.
If such a simple, factual addition causes this horrible upheaval on wikipedia, I'm baffled.
Also, MONGO followed me to 3 totally unrelated articles.  Clearly he was following/stalking me, rather than editing articles he is interested in.  And, he got away with it, even with administrators who laughed with him about it all.  They do derisory posts, give each other barnsters, and laugh about their control over a novice wikipedia user.
  "