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