Double Standard reloaded Who is interested in debating and who is not Who is interested in developing the article and who is interested in freezin it to death including using threats and veiled censorship in the form of selective double standard applying of internal rules  After all it never too much to remind that an editor besides not been unwilling or unable to counter argue over a year and a half he also have done baseless statements about editions done by me in a certain rude tone During all this time I have responded to him in the same mode but especifically to these assertions not having any left unanswered unlike him and only me is who was warned and blocked Curious     Summary of operations To the newcomers in this discussion and also to the selective forgetful ones  See above The heart of this Case As well as the sections Spurious Quotations Once Again and sections  to  in my Talk Page  To note that   from grammatical objections to the size of version that I propose no one objection was left standing and even so it continues to be reversed  even taking into account that the present version  incurs spurious quote in the st paragraph  too detailed and redundant information for an article that are supposed to be short on the nd paragraph  and incomplete besides be longer vague and non neutral in the rd   How not to think in double standard when  The last disruptive revertion besides be longer than the version I propose was based entirely on incorrect inferences and historical misconceptions as I shown above again See above points A to E in Once Again section  that were related only to the nd paragraph of the version I propose and that No word was uttered against or about the spuriousness that was purged of the st paragraph as well as against or about the rd paragraph that according to some editor Ctr F on word solid to see above on the discussion about grammar in the Once Again section was pretty solid  And even so the revertion was done  So I again ask you all   Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances   In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime monarchical military etc whatever be  Worse which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above  even if this purposes are involuntary although the time that passed without actions having been taken as well as the resistance to remediation maintained only makes this possibility of involuntariness unlikely   Which group of honest editors ladies and gentlemen who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument would vote against such remediation or would omit about it