alright we've witnessed an administrative demonstration of power as with the protection of the article thanks bundy for your kind warning can we now constructively return to the matter in hand after all it is the task of all of us wikipedians to see to it that articles contained in this free encyclopedia adhere to encyclopedical standards and not those of the yellow press isn't it 'free' should not stand for 'free of correct facts' 'free of truth fulness ' or for that matter 'free of ethical restraints' one would think we all at least those of good will among us agree on that now it happens to be the case if not by willful disruptive tendentious editing then by negligence that in its current state the article francesco carotta is full of errors of all sorts and easily verifiably so some of which were mentioned in the previous now deleted comment especially the section on the dutch media controversy is a complete distortion of the real events for instance the review of peter veldhuisen was not related at all to the activities and pronouncements of van hooff this section needs a thorough revision or maybe the best thing to do would be to just delete it since it does not provide any information on the theory and might be of interest only to the yellow press furthermore we the populares the people's front of rome so to speak hope that it is not considered a personal attack if we dare to ask the reputable user rubenstein what exactly he thinks it is that qualifies him to act as the expert for and supervisor over this particular article if user slrubenstein does not deem us worthy of an answer as has been the case a few times on this page maybe other editors or just readers could try to help us understand in any case we fail to see why slrubenstein's arbitrary words and deeds should carry any special weight for the decent normal wikipedians we also don't understand why there seems to be so little opposition to what appears to be his self arrogated authority so in closing we ask an unbiased and honest administrator there certainly must be one around here to remove the editing protection from the article so that some much needed reasonable work can be done by knowledgeable and sincere editors in order to prevent tedious unfruitful edit wars we suggest to discuss changes to the article on this talk page first