"
  Not trying to be clever, only factual. On the relevant edit of ""Hamsun's obituary"" I added reference to the official translation of the edit I made. Pls see talk-page. ""Eisfbnore"" and ""Jezhotwells"" in conjunction edit-warred and appearently solicited blocking and thus excluded the correct translation as main form. I only held to the factually correct, added ref.s, and the combined undoings by ""Eisfnore"" and ""Jezhotwells"" made this appear as though I was initiator - incorrectly. This was not a 3RR, as info was added. When two editors with up to 3RR's each join up to edit-war, a solitary user is unfairly outnumbered. This can only be seen as manipulation against me as user, with the intent to maintain/introduce biased info on Wikipedia. I find this shameful, but have neither time nor editing-skills and -knowledge of Wikipedia-arcania to continue these efforts at defending Hamsun's reputation towards the English-speaking world, against such persistent efforts at negatively biasing the impression of Hamsun. The errors are winning. Why isn't reason supported better on Wikipedia? - As for ""admin attention"", I don't know what or who that is. I have asked ""How many am I writing to?"" with no answer. I don't have time to deep-reasearch Wikipedia just to defend this one correct word in Hamsun's obituary on Hitler. Seems the rules you bring to bear should be presented before using them - like the ""rules"" or conventions about ""so much admin attention on your page"". That's news to me now. What is it?"