you have not been at all constructive you don't use the notion of primary sources as indicated in the material i've already quoted all you've done is to opine that it is or which it plainly isn't you don't give constructive indications as to how to improve the material as to primary sources again this is what wiki says primary sources that have been reliably published for example by a university press or mainstream newspaper may be used in wikipedia but only with care because it is easy to misuse them any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation without a secondary source a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable educated person without specialist knowledge for example an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source i make no conclusions about the material i don't make any interpretations of the material you seem to me to simply be wrong in your interpretation of the rules control