A Small Community I am having an issue On the 26th of august the following statement was removed from the Foresters Falls Ontario article Foresters Falls is now a small community having digressed significantly since the invention of motorized transport This information was removed without any explanation Because it is a factual peice of information I replaced it aug 28th and for safety sake put the book I had gotten it from as a referance I explained my edit as Facts are facts I imagined that the matter would end here Why would anyone insist on its removal after this point The next day I saw that it had been removed again by the same user who explained if it s a fact cite a reliable source A simple enough request I thought I had already done that but no matter I renamed referances as sources re added the sentance again explained this and left it Within the hour my edit had been reverted and a message left on my user board saying Your change to the page Foresters Falls Ontario was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted Needless to say I was a bit upset Who determined this who s POV about Foresters Falls is more important What criteria are being used I understand that the statement is not the most important ever but it certainly doesn t detract from the article I have been attempting to have the user ArmadilloFromHell explain why he insists on it s absence but he is being very stubborn and will not answer my questions I don t want to start harrassing people but I have no idea what to do Here are a few of my questions has the community not gotten smaller was it not caused by the automobile have I not sourced the statement as asked is it not a fact is it not information does it not help inform people as to why foresters falls is not as large as it seemingly once was is it not the only peice of information in the article that bridges the span of time between 1870 and present is the usfullness of the edit the only criteria used to determine if it will be reverted or not Why it is better to not have the statement than to have it Does this information not answers a pertinant question left open by the article If I were to refrase the sentance would that be better What criteria was used to determine that it should be removed Why insist on the removal of this perfectly sensible statement I simply think that this edit was made in haste and I get the feeling that I ve cause offence simply by questioning the logic behind it