` ::Lets try this again.  It is not what you did, it is how you did it.  Yes, you can find examples of bad text in the sections you deleted.  However, while I acknowledge that you never said ``I don't like it`` and I apologize for claiming that you said those exact words, I also still hold firm that at the time you made the edits you did, the explanation for your edits was insufficient to justify a wholesale change of the article such that you tried to make.  I have no problem with you making the changes you are making.  I will even concede that every single change you made was for the better However, you still respond to my attempts to get you to justify your changes so others can know that they are for the better by raising spurious accusations that either I am a bad editor, or not knowledgable, or anything else.  Again, your edits were reverted because the manner in which they were carried out made them appear random and without prior forthought.  I am no longer in objection to the edits you made since I now understand them and agree with them however, I was only able to do so after you came to the talk page to explain yourself.  You could avoid these problems in the future by doing so from the start.  While we're in the position of demanding apologies, you could consider the following slights you made: **You claim that I was objecting to something that I did not object to, specifically the Keith Richards snoring crap.  I admited from the start that you were right to remove this sentance.  Get off of this point, and simply justify the rest of your removals from this article.  I will raise no objections to any edit you make, as long as those edits are made with explanations here at the talk page. **You continuously claim that I am a bad editor.  I have never, in the last several months, done any of the following: ***Added an unreferenced statement or assertion of fact to an article ***Removed verifiable text from an article without explaining what I was doing at the talk page ***Made any wholesale changes to an article without explaining what I was doing at the talk page ***Redone changes I had done, and that were reverted by others, without first taking it up for discussion at the talk page. ::So before you go saying things like ``you really ought to excuse yourself from editing this entry or any other entry`` and ``You have caused your own emabarassment`` and ``I don't think you have shown yourself to be well qualified`` you should stop making these personal attacks.  I have never questioned your knowledge or your ability as an editor.  I have never made it personal.  You have.  You have not yet looked at a single meaningful edit to any article I have done; you have never read any of the work I have done at various places at wikipedia.  Do not make such statements unless you speak from a place of knowledge regarding my work here.  All I have done is asked you to justify what you have done so that all editors can understand what you are doing AND so that we will no longer remove your work.  If I understand what you are doing, I won't object to it.  I did not understand when I reverted your edits, because you never adequately explained yourself.  You now have explained yourself.  I now understand.  I no longer object.  See how that works?   `