`  == Allegations section disputed == 1- wikipedia policies state that not every single detail has to be given, I think my version is concise enough  2- your references cannot be viewed. The only one I could find was Richard Clarke's testimony with regards to Suwaidan having ``financial transactions`` with BMI  3- wikipedia policies state that the criticism section should not be given undue length as compared to the rest of the article even if it is true. You can read the policy for yourself. Im sick of referencing it is the wikipedia guideline on criticism in biographies.   4- I did not remove the details that there are allegations against him only the details about ``sworn affidavit`` etc.  5- You gave no reason for removing the following sentence  ``a stance which he has repeated in a recent interview, where he took a harsh position against the acts of 9/11.``  6- you removed the accurate statement ``but the exact meaning of these past business dealings has never been clarified.``  Again the section is still disputed. I do not believe your edits are adding to the neutrality of balance of the article. On the contrary every edit you make has an undertone of accusing Suwaidan. Even the subtleties of your previous word usage such as ``however`` or ``in addition``. I am insisting on this version and will not accept any version where you are publishing allegations against Suwaidan when he has not been charged in a court of law. Again this is an encyclopedia article that gives a broad overview. For details allegations and flat out gossip the internet is only a click away.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by     :The court document was available online but it not anymore but the standard for Wikipedia is not ``viewability`` but whether it can Verified. For example, a library book is acceptable but obviously it canot be viewed online and WP is not only an online reference source.  This document is a public court document which is part of a public file. I have a copy ad would be glad to send it to you or to any person or place of your choosing. I have done everything I know how to do including repeated rewrites to try and present the court documents fairly but you just don't want them in there. Fine, but you are not the last word. Call in the moderators if you like but As I said, you do not get to choose what and what does not get put into this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     : I am now stating for the record that I am finished dealing with you because of your repeated, sustained, and acknowledged personal attacks on me. I have said to I am blue in the face that I added material to this article that you consider ``accusing``            because it was written as an advertisemet for somebody which you have ready said is a ``role model`` for you whose reputation you do not wish to see damaged.  :From this point foward, I will place important material in the article if it can be solidly referenced and neutrally presented. If you also have the same material, then please include it. I will only delete material if it is unreferenced or it is redundant but as I said I will no longer carry on this discussion with you because of your inability to stop making personal accusations.    Follow Up:  I am following wikipedia procedures and will ask the moderators step in for your repeated vandalism of this wiki. As well, I will replace it with this entire full version each and every time you make an edit like the last one you did without reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     :Please feel free to make a fool of yourself as vandalism is defined by WP as:  :Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalis