On 1/7/06, M. Anderson <symphonia(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I just went and looked over the article and I do not see any flagrant Neutral Point of View violations. What the article does is present controversy regarding the subject of the article, and there are links at the bottom, which you keep removing, that corroborate and expand on that. I think you misunderstand what the neutral point of view is. It is not there to simply present the most basic of facts. What it is there for is to prevent outright accusing Freeman of anything. All that this article does is present the charges and events surrounding Bill Freeman. Admittedly, there's no real providing for Freeman's own defense, but until someone (for instance, yourself) provides a source for his rebuttals, there's no real way of reporting on what they are. The reason you are being accused of vandalism is because you are simply removing the content without any discussion as to WHY you are doing it. This apparently being the first time that you've discussed your reasons for it, let me tell you that if you had indicated on the article's discussion page, reachable by clicking on the discuss tab at the top of it, what your reasons for removing basically the entire article were, I'm sure someone would've looked into it. As it stands, what you were doing appeared to be just simple vandalism, something people like myself and the editors who were putting the content back in have to deal with in droves every day. Without you presenting a reason for your edits, we have no choice but to assume you were doing it just to screw around. I encourage you to talk to other editors about this -- this would be an okay place, but the best would be, again, on the article's discussion page. Provide for defense of Freeman, or heck, prove that the three links provided are a load of crap. You need to let others know what your reasons are, though. -- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.