It s remarkable that you reverted my edit claiming wording in source is the reason and you need to use the talk page and yet not only had you failed to notice that I had used the talk page you haven t even bothered to comment on the discussion there in which it has emerged that the source did not even use that wording And not only that but you catastrophically misunderstood the concept of citing sources anyway The wording in the source is irrelevant The information in the source is what matters All in all your conduct has been a disgrace If you don t want to look like a troll you should go over to that talk page and apologise for reverting with such an inadequate reason 2 220 204 70