`  :::::::::Thank you for your clarification and reference, . I could be wrong in the articles I wrote, you know, and I could be proved wrong. And if somebody pointed that out, it would be a good thing, I would learn from it. But very likely that will never be established, since  simply and only wipes out text, sometimes referring cryptically to some procedurality, if that, and for the rest, I am blocked. For example, in the Tendency of the rate of profit to fall article,  cut out more than 1,000 words, remarking cryptically that ``it doesn't seem to have anything to do with profit decline``. Huh? It does not ``seem`` to have anything to do with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? Thanks very much, I contributed 1,000 words and  cuts them out in a second because it ``seems`` wrong! That is not the kind of editing that is needed in wikipedia, I think. I know very well that unreferenced statements can always be removed, or placed somewhere else. Them is the breaks. However, if a statement seems to be wrong, it is the best procedure to tag it appropriately and discuss it on the talk page. This is not however what  does, he simply wipes it out. Now, why would an amiable 56-year old archivist and editor of academic publications like me, get angry with this at all? The reason is that he edits topics under the cover of some suitable procedurality, while in reality I think he is subverting the real intention of the procedures, to insert his own ideological perspective of how things should be, and without proper knowledge of the subjectmatter. There is no procedure without a loophole somewhere. In that case, it does not really help to appeal to procedures, since he will find yet another way to delete text, as is his habit. I requested an arbitration procedure but that was denied, and there was no interest in looking at the matter further when I posted to the noticeboard, since I called 's editing style ``criminal``. I fully agree with you, that I made a serious mistake in letting my irritation get the better of me, and, feelig irritated, used inappropriate language to express my point of view. I must desist from any ``personal attacks`` in wikipedia at any time, even if I think that the editing is not being done ``in good faith`` and without appropriate discussion. Point is that such criticisms of an editor are not helpful, or effective, in the attempt to improve articles, which is the overall aim (if  genuinely assisted in improving articles, I would certainly welcome it). But whether I will work on wikipedia again I do not know yet, since it is very frustrating that, when you try to provide readers with the best possible article, parts of the text simply get wiped out, for no good reason, and without proper explanation (if you are familiar with the subject, and I only write about things I have a lot of experience with, including contact with many of the people mentioned in the articles). I will ponder that some more in the future, weighing the costs and benefits of doing unpaid work in wikipedia as a service to readers. I just feel terribly disappointed about the effort I have put in.  `