December  UTC Thank you now if you and Elonka think my edits were biased or NPOV then we can discuss your thoughts toward building consensus on that new untagged topic However you have not listed bias or NPOV you have listed two OR statements Well what they really amount to is misplaced clauses We could easily delete to solicit donors and to assist Elder in the process and move them elsewhere or move the footnotes and add other footnotes But isnt it interesting that if that had been Elonkas concern she could have deleted just the clauses instead of the whole sentences Have you read  Also as I will point out at AFD the simple facts are that this usage was created entirely by Paul supporters it received prominence solely due to Paul supporters and upon reaching prominence it has been used by six campaigns Your description of Pauls placement is precisely proper weighting for these facts Also I did not admit bias as my refactor above makes clearer But most important I thought third opinions were a form of mediation I need you to answer questions  and  just above so that I know whether this process should continue or what other process I should invoke to build consensus Elonka and I have seriously different intentions for this article and that difference should be worked out by discussion I have politely refused to encourage edit warring to the articles detriment and to fulfillment of my warning that Elonkas actions improperly encouraged AFD Since you have also voted for deletion I am having trouble understanding the meaning of third opinions and your place in this discussion please answer those two questions