" 

 == Edit by Murry1975, April 18th, 2015. == 

 Er, It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. 

 I think we can draw our own conclusions about the motives, anyway. When additional and relevant sourced information (remember - ""As per WP:RS we use what is sourced"") is removed without explanation, and ambiguous pronouns restored, amongst other things, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the aim of the editor is not to improve the article, but something else. The removal of a book from the bibliography - the only actual book connected with the subject - is similarly difficult to justify. 

 To quote Murry1975 again, ""the fact that one editor cannot except this is no reason to leave it out."" It seems that we have difficulty in deciding to which editor that applies. In the early stages of these discussions, Murry1975 had my sympathies, especially in view of the decidedly idiosyncratic views of some of his opponents. Sadly, that is no more. I have attempted to improve this article in line with the ""principles"" of Wikipedia, and have provided explanations of the changes I have made. I am eager to read Murry1975's explanation for his reversal.   "