On 12/15/05, Brian brian0918@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for picking out one single sentence to attack.

Are you unused to rational argument. I addressed that claim because it's so obviously, blitheringly false.

You also falsely claim that your actions are universally supported. I am here to tell you, as a longtime editor of that article, that your claim is absolutely false.

Look at the opener of the article. It's an absolute mess.

"George Walker Bush (born 6 July 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States since 2001.

"From 1995 to 2000, Bush served as Governor of the State of Texas. A lifelong member of the Republican Party, Bush was a businessman before entering politics. He helped found the failed Arbusto Energy and later became a managing partner in the Texas Rangers baseball team. Bush was elected the 46th Governor of Texas in 1994 and was re-elected in 1998. He won the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election and was elected President amid much controversy. He was reelected to a second term in the 2004 presidential election, which began January 20, 2005."

Six months ago, the opener read as follows:

"George Walker Bush (born 6 July 1946) is an American politician and the 43rd (current) president of the United States. Bush, a member of the Republican Party, is part of the prominent Bush family, which includes his grandfather (former U.S. Senator Prescott Bush), his father (former President George H. W. Bush), and his brother (Jeb Bush, the current Florida governor)."

"Before becoming president, he was a businessman, involved in the oil industry and professional sports. He was elected the 46th Governor of Texas, and won the nomination of the Republican Party in the 2000 presidential election. Bush became President, defeating Vice President Al Gore of the Democratic Party in a particularly controversial and close election. Bush was re-elected in 2004, defeating Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts."

The article badly needs sorting out. It's grown approximately 50% in the past six months, but at the same time it's been hemorrhaging useful information and good writing.

So now this is being made much, much harder by your action in preventing the article's sections being edited.

I do think this deliberate act of making editing more difficult should be classed as vandalism. You are unapologetic in admitting that you intend to make it more difficult for this article to be edited.