what was cleverly inserted instead thanks for assuming bad faith in your edit summary smatprt are you really going to put up a separate fight to retain the ugly and illogical use of term on each of the involved pages after there was support for my rewrite at shakespearean authorship question i was hoping you'd have the grace to let it go when i inserted the same changes here may i ask what exactly it is you suspect me of my changes at shakespearean authorship question were intended as neutral stylistic improvements everybody else thought that's what they were but you keep implying i have some evil agenda and therefore keep reverting me what is that agenda exactly can't we try to assume that we're all trying to improve william shakespeare and it's subarticles talk