i'm not supporting somebody who is damaging the article in my view both of you are attempting to push a pov in the article the fact that you are inserting sourced pov doesn't stop it being pov my warning to you was on the basis that you are attempting to send another editor away from the article montanabw is allowed to edit text that you introduced and isn't required to keep his her text distinct from yours whilst you may well have included the veterinarian's credentials did you mention that she is connected with an animal rights group if not you are being selective to further a particular pov mayalld talk retrieved from facts observations not pov facts and observations from professionals qualified to speak on the subject animal abuse in rodeo yes i referenced the veterinarian's statements directing the reader to the animal welfare site her professional observations are posted at an animal welfare site her observations were sourced i don't know if she is a spokesman for the organization i don't know if she is connected with an animal rights group maybe she is maybe she isn't maybe she's the president maybe she's just a contributer how far do i have to research a veterinarian's background before including her observations on animal abuse in rodeo in an item about animal abuse in rodeo i'm not sending anyone away where did i say get out of here mbw is not contributing in a positive way and needs to source her contributions in one instance he she made sweeping statement with a footnote the footnote supported absolutely nothing in the statement is wiki a collection of misleading info while i agree that mbw is allowed to edit my text he she is not improving it and why is everyone having a problem if i edit his hers he she is tweaking mine to subtlely reflect her pro rodeo pov animals are practically never injured abused bruised broken maimed or killed in rodeo or to invite the reader to dismiss mine as the contributions of an animal nut