"
 Notice to 198.178.190.1 

DO NOT make claims that are not contained in reliable sources. They are ""not relevant to improving the article"", and will be deleted (per WP:TALK).DO NOT make demands that have no basis in policy. They are ""not relevant to improving the article"", and will be deleted (per WP:TALK).
I am sick to death of your continual WP:SOAPboxing on this talkpage and will simply delete or revert (rather than archiving  as you simply remove the archive templates) any further irrelevant material. ''TalkStalk''(P) 

I hold a PhD in statistics, what is your degree? 
I've been published in two scientific journals (working on more), have you?
I've asked you on your site to at least allow time respond to the rule violations I have been accused of before you archive. Is this unreasonable?
You are saying you are going to simply delete discussion.  Is this not the same vandalism?

Here is the statement on WP:SOAP
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:

Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1] 

Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to ""climb soapboxes"" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. 

Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. 

Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. 
Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small ""garage"" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. 

Clearly I have not tried to recruit, sell, gossip or self-promote.  The opinion peices are clearly talking about article and not discussion pages and are stated as such. The opinion I have stated are backed up with facts and hence on the discussion page.  Please enlighten me with what definiton of WP:SOAP you are using.  You are deleting with cause, harassing with provocation, and stating opinion with out any basis in facts."