Your methods are so transparent Andrew its not even funny First of all you are not attempting to put in information from the original article You are in fact trying to add quite blatant original research to the article This has been repeatedly demonstrated above by me in my post from   June  for example Secondly I have not argued that the crucial words I want to keep in say exactly the same as words you want I have shown you the importance of those key words and therefore what is wrong with your edit in replacing them with your own words by referring to Ellens own comments see my post from post from   June  Thirdly my edit bears absolutely no resemblance to yours the latter of which is presumably what the counter proposals you mention above refers to nor have I indicated or would ever indicate it does This is a content dispute remember We are on different poles on this issue and only one of us is right hint it is not you When you find the time to stop casting aspersions on other editors do me a favor and quote from Ellens study or her own words during her visit to this page the parts you think support your edit Good luck with that