":::::::""'Slimy'? Nice."" If you engage in slimy tactics because you think it'll help you win an argument, you don't get to misdirect attention on the person who pointed out that you did so. Stop pretending that the term with which I accurately characterized your behavior is more questionable than that behavior itself. It isn't.  

 :::::::""What these articles show is that the WP “community” and our readers are perfectly fine with the current versions of these articles, and have been for years as far as Orlan and William Pope.L are concerned."" No, they do not. As I stated before, this is assumption on your part. I'll ask you again, do you have any evidence that specific requests were made both those subjects to omit their birth names, and that a consensus decided to comply with those requests, and not that the articles merely omit the names yet because they haven't been developed? Links to discussions, for example? As it stands, two of those articles have only a single, one-line message on their talk pages, and the third has no talk page yet at all, so I'm guessing your don't. Stop pretending that stating something dogmatically makes it true. It doesn't.  

 :::::::""These BLPs contain information relevant to their subject’s achievements, and that’s what a reputable encyclopedia should focus on."" We're not talking about what articles focus on. We're talking about whether an biographical article should mention the subject's birth name. Obviously it should, since it's an inherent part of biographical work. Tom Cruise's article certainly focuses on his work and his public image. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't mention his birth surname. What an article should mention and what it should focus on are two different things. Mentioning a subject's birth name and focusing on what he or she is known for are not mutually exclusive points on an Either/Or spectrum. Please stop pretending that they are. 

 :::::::""The fact that in Touré’s case, the subject made a polite request to have something as irrelevant as a name that is in no way connected to what he has achieved removed rather strengthens that line of reasoning. To make it even clearer, if you were notable, would I want to know whether you were known as Farty Pants in second grade?"" The fact that Touré made a request to have his name removed strengthens the line of reasoning that encyclopedias should only focus on subject's work? How do you figure this? This is a non sequitur. Do you even know what you're saying? The fact that one of these statements follows the other in your syllogism isn't the same thing as saying that it strengthens it. 

 :::::::Second, the birth name of a subject is not ""irrelevant"" in a biography about them, and to say that it is preposterous. A person's birth name is one of the first things a biography mentions. Pretending it isn't means you have to ignore just about every biography ever written, and the practices of biographical scholarship itself. By contrast, grade school epithets are irrelevant. Comparing the two is silly. This is an ideological statement, and not one based on biographical practices.  

 :::::::""Wrt casting aspersions, I merely pointed out a few things that outside observers will find interesting."" You cast aspersions on other editors by mocking their edit count, and making ad hominem remarks about them, which had nothing to do with this discussion, or with falsifying the reasoning they gave for their positions. The fact that you refer to this with different, euphemistic wording does not change this. 

 :::::::""By linking to them. You chose to name one of the contributors I mentioned.""  So what? Is it your position that others reading this discussion would not have learned the identity of the editor in question from your link? Didn't your link go right to his user page? If so, then in way was my referring to him by name relevant? For that matter, what makes you think he even cares that others name him? Do you really think he's trying to hide, given that he chose to put that logo on his user page?  

 :::::::""Stating one’s support for the rights of people with unpopular views is fine and dandy, but if a user emphasises that by flying the KKK flag on their WP page, don’t blame people for concluding that this may not be the best person to vote on an issue concerning a notable black writer."" I can easily blame such people for being incapable of forming coherent logic, since this is a ad hominem argument. Again, Buddy made clear that he displays that logo in order to make a statement about unpopular speech. What type of aesthetic reaction your or I have to that decision has jack-all to do with whether the reasoning he provided for his position is valid or not. If his position, or the reasoning he offered for it, was invalid, then you could've falsif