Talk:Hillel Day School

message: I am opening this discussion per WP:TALK#DISCUSS guidance that says "If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes." 
I recently made a comprehensive change to the History section of this article (see revision 928531053 of 29 Nov 2019). Contained in this change are:
* Organized the section in subsections by periods of school's history for more logical presentation of material and ease of reading. 
* Summarized the enrollment trends in each period and sparingly added enrollment figures (with their sources) to prove the trends.
* Added the information about the school's 9th grade (with the sources) that the school had for 22 years and then discontinued in 1988.
* Added information about inflow of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union as a partial explanation of school's growth in 70s-90s, and included a couple of figures of the count of Russian students in school at that time (with sources).
* Edits for style, better transitioning, and flow of the prose.   
* All new information sourced to eight newly added and some existing sources.
I made these changes to improve the encyclopedic quality of the article.
You reverted all these changes with a short and generic edit note "Reverted to revision 928413327 by Steven (Editor) (talk): Trivial stuff - non-encyclopedic (TW)". I do believe you had some good reasons, but undoing such a big edit (6,265 characters) looks like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am puzzled and don't know what to do to address your concern! Can you please be more specific? Let me quote a passage from WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which belongs to an essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (sorry for the long quote; I just can't say better than the authors of that passage already did):
"What shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia, what Wikipedia is not, has been defined by consensus. However, this includes many types of things, each having its own section within that or another policy. Therefore, the terms "unencyclopedic", and its flip-side "encyclopedic", are too general to be useful in deletion discussions. What we need to know are the specific reasons why the article should or should not be included. Otherwise, you just leave us guessing as to what you meant. Simply answer the question, What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how?"
I am undoing your deletion. Please don't delete again but rather explain your specific concerns: what specifically in my edits is trivial stuff and non-encyclopedic, and what policy (or guideline) does it violate? Then, let's work together towards improving this article. Thank you - Yymmff (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to discuss anything with someone who has an obvious conflict of interest.  You should be making no edits to the article.Onel5969 TT me 10:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:TALK#Sectioning, I've  into section #COI tag discussion below. Yymmff (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing the History section 

message: :This topic was split off from #split COI discussion point, above.
 on 24 November 2019 you added  template to article. The template documentation Template:COI#When_to_use recommends "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article". Feel free to do it here. Yymmff (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag discussion