I appreciate this  I reverted  with just that  sentence  source addition  I then requested to discuss it at the Talk page  Question  So should I have first discussed it at the Talk page and then asked it was acceptable for the article  I thought on wikipedia Im free to add something and then discuss it  Also they reverted me  I added the simple  sentence and they reverted me  times  Im not sure why the focus is on me warring with them because they reverted me  Could you clarify this  Again I added the simple sentence and national source Outside Magazine and I then asked to discuss it and they reverted it  times  MONGO cited reasons such as the person is deceased that the person took only  pill of the prescription steroid Outside article is on the use of steroids for performance enhancing on Everest he commented in the Talk section that I should not be against the mountaineer etc  These all seem very unacceptable  Highly biased journalism  Almost laughably so  And he didnt care to discuss it  Fact  The climber was reveled by Outside to have taken it the Outside article is on Climbers Little Helper subtitled a dangerous trend in mountaineering rampant use of performanceenhancing drugs particularly the powerful steroid dexamethasone httpwwwoutsideonlinecomfitnessClimbingsLittleHelperhtml Section on Kellogg is  paragraphs down the article If such a simple factual addition causes this horrible upheaval on wikipedia Im baffled Also MONGO followed me to  totally unrelated articles  Clearly he was followingstalking me rather than editing articles he is interested in  And he got away with it even with administrators who laughed with him about it all  They do derisory posts give each other barnsters and laugh about their control over a novice wikipedia user