"

Rubywine you are mixing thinks up and do conclusions out of the context. You mention these things:

""I am perturbed at the strong tendency towards territorialism over this article displayed by  and "" We do not want to own or be the ""alpha-editing"" guys on these article. As i already wrote, a lot of people worked on the article, and it provoced me a lot that the entire work of them was replaced by a copyright template without any serious demands inside the article. I know you say there are serious demands, i oppose it and call them original research and neutral point of view.
""rejecting contributions from new editors "", ""patronising new editors"", ""and intense personal hostility towards new editors"" this is absolut out of the context. First, you made major changes without writting them down on the talk page. Second, after your edits have been reverted you placed a copyright template. At last, i was not the one who started to be offensive! On the contrary, when you or henriettapussycat wanted to leave i asked to continue your work! The answer was, because i did not agree with the claim of a copyright violation, i was called stupid, and that i dont understand copyright violations. After this i got offensive, not before!
Italic text""In fact since starting work on this article I have engaged in far more discussion on this talk page than either of my accusers"" Yes but you did not edit the stuff you named as copyright violation for over a week.Italic text""Secondly, I continue to be extremely dismayed at the material which appeared under the sections for sexual and psychological effects"" Could this not be fixed without a copyright template?
Italic text""Lastly, for anyone who imagines that they WP:OWN this article, or who continues to regard it as a personal hobbyhorse, take note: after it emerges from copyvio scrutiny I will be making every effort to invite contributions from the Association of African Women Scholars, RAINBO and other women's health activists. This article is desperately in need of scholarly attention by people with relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience"" You blame others that this article maybe their personal hobbyhorse? With your actions you are the last one who should use such a sentence! ""This article is desperately in need of scholarly attention by people with relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience""'' This article is mostly based on conclusions of official health organisations or human right groups like WHO, UNICEF and UNFARP. Do you really think their work is based on persons with lesser qualifications, knowledge and experience?

It seems to me that you and Henriettapussycat project your false and unlogic conclusions on others, add some logical definitions out of the context to act a logical conclusion related to the original issue. Furthermore i get more and more the feeling that you use the argumentation of a possible copyright violation to push your changes of the article.  "