" 

 ::::I couldn't agree more, ""Compromise"" does not mean repeatedly reinserting material, that's not what I was referring to when i suggested compromise. I have made it abundantly clear that I am open to your suggestions for alternate wording. Reinserting material is simply the only option you left me with, as you repeatedly ignore each and every one of my arguments and suggestions. How many times do I have to ask you to suggest a compromised wording? I have asked in good faith on two separate occasions now, waiting well over a week on each occasion. How many times do I have to explain that stating who won an award without giving any indication as to why is not particularly helpful? I have been trying to resolve this for almost a month now. I accepted your first reversion of my edits, despite its juvenile and condescending language. I made a case for my point in good faith, which you simply ignored:  On August 5 I asked you So how would you propose rewording why the were chosen as the recipients of the award in a neutral manner? This again, was completely ignored by yourself. On August 18 I again asked you for your suggestion on wording, which you ignored. Yet when I come up with alternate wording on my own, it is reverted and I am accused of deliberate BLP violations. Your arrogance is simply amazing.   "