  ::::::If your reverts are NOT intended to avoid a problem, then how do you justify them? Or did you not read what you were responding to?  ::::::In any case, the point is that if an edit makes an article better, or of equal quality, we should leave it. We do not own this article as individuals.  ::::::Your response which now seemingly diverts attention to P2 is silly, and again if you are serious then please do not just cripple the article, fix it like you imply you would, which would mean making a P2 article. That P2 article should of course link both upwards and downwards within the accepted phylogeny. If you refuse to put in the alternative solution, then your revert is un-justified by the explanation you have given. This is the same as when you previously argued that people could look things up in the E article. In the end, the article needs a Wikipedia link up to the article concerning the next level. I am asking you to do it in whatever way you think works.  