Bryan Derksen wrote:
The inclusive version wouldn't necessarily
have to be an exact hybrid of
the two versions you're fighting over. The information on the widespread
error could be in a footnote that all of the "disputed" facts get
labelled with, in which case it would be a single line or so of text
which gets linked to from multiple places within the article.
I think that's one of the things I tried, and guess what... the IP
It sounds like the unregistered editor is being silly, then. But we're
now getting into specific details of the argument itself, which I'm not
at all familiar with. I've just been giving general principles so far.
Perhaps take it to RfC at this point, if you're completely at loggerheads?