" 
 ::::::Removing sourced material that is part of an article's standard layout is vandalism. Furthermore when the editor in question signs off their changes in the revision history as ""because clearly it's oh so difficult to revert edits you disagree with while retaining parts of them that you agree with. let's see if you manage it this time or if you're going to keep behaving like a petulant fucking child)"" (his words not mine) kind of makes it plain that the edit was deliberately disruptive and that the intention was not to improve the article, it was specifically to wind me up. You have ignored this fact 3times now and therefore you are being selective. It's not like I didn't try and engage with the editor on their talk page and direct them to the articles talk page as well. Yes you are definately being selective here.   "