" 

 == Please Investigate before you make false and baseless charges on my user page == 

 You left a comment on my user page accusing falsely accusing me of edit warring.  Had you bothered to investigate, you would have have recognized that in both cases my fully-sourced contributions were simply deleted, without discussion, in favor of unsourced or impermissibly blog-sourced opinion conformining with the particular editors' bias.  Go look look at the discussion page for each article and satisfy yourself as to who was engaged in frivolous and contentious editing. 

 With respect to the C of C, note that my recommendation that the new section on foreign dues be deleted was followed.  This occured after a lengthy discussion in which those proposing the section insisted on favoring politically-funded blog ""report"" over a New York Times article refuting it. 

 As to the Coffee Party article, read it for yourself.  It's nothing more than a press release put out by the organization itself.  The authors pretend, based on Facebook ""likes"", that the Coffee Party rivals the Tea Party in popularity and political influence.  It's quite preposterous, and if you're threatening to ban me based on my efforts to to add balance to the article, you're way out of line.  I would also note that after a long period of pulling teeth, some of my edits were adopted after it because impossible to reject then without losing credibility. 

 In short, what has happened is that my recommendation have been repeatedly and vexatiously removed without explanation or warning. I assume if I went around and repeatedly deleted someone else's work in the same way, I would be banned. 

 As you can see, I gave given you a fair and full explanation of what transpired.  I assume your response will afford me the same courtesy, backed up by specific examples in favor of your position in the unlikely event you don't change your mind after carefully reviewing the evidence. 

  "