Thread:Lenalia Row/@comment-2017262-20150904205738/@comment-2017262-20150905004517

How exactly is is circumventing anything to ask someone else who is in charge about the policy? There is no "process" to circumvent because I told you before that I don't care if the change stays or goes. I just want an answer to the question of why and to what degree speculation can be included in articles. I wanted someone else to take a look at the thread so that I could get an impartial answer as to whether or not you had a valid point. I don't have anything against you, but this isn't your wiki. I'm allowed to ask whomever I want whatever questions I want, especially since our conversation appeared to be going nowhere. That includes questions about the policies. And if you think I am being unfair in my presentation, the original thread is still there. Anyone can look at it.

Also, you have been trying to defend the inclusion of something in an article which has no direct evidence. I can't say it any other way; that's simply what you've been doing. Like I said in my last post on the original thread, give me a source. Give me some evidence other than just your opinion, and this whole thing would become a non-issue. But all you do is to keep giving me speculation, and all I can do is just keep saying that speculation doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, and that if something can't be proven one way or another, it ought not to be there.