not trying to be clever only factual on the relevant edit of hamsun's obituary i added reference to the official translation of the edit i made pls see talk page eisfbnore and jezhotwells in conjunction edit warred and appearently solicited blocking and thus excluded the correct translation as main form i only held to the factually correct added ref s and the combined undoings by eisfnore and jezhotwells made this appear as though i was initiator incorrectly this was not a rr as info was added when two editors with up to rr's each join up to edit war a solitary user is unfairly outnumbered this can only be seen as manipulation against me as user with the intent to maintain introduce biased info on wikipedia i find this shameful but have neither time nor editing skills and knowledge of wikipedia arcania to continue these efforts at defending hamsun's reputation towards the english speaking world against such persistent efforts at negatively biasing the impression of hamsun the errors are winning why isn't reason supported better on wikipedia as for admin attention i don't know what or who that is i have asked how many am i writing to with no answer i don't have time to deep reasearch wikipedia just to defend this one correct word in hamsun's obituary on hitler seems the rules you bring to bear should be presented before using them like the rules or conventions about so much admin attention on your page that's news to me now what is it