":::a-ha, so argue rectitude of original edit inadvisable as subservience to overriding need for stability in project more important than who is right and who is wrong in deciding matter. information which arguably not belong allowed to stay in interest of politics of site. is odd policy, but understand now where was wrong in interpretation. strict adhering to rules also not advisable, yes? is possible for small acts of not meeting standards to sum in large benefit for project. is possible for at first glance benign material to viewed as contentious (for instance, if Patton Oswalt listed as actor in movie but was someone else, is contentious, yes? if information not sourced, is possible), but is neither here or there. is only small point to make. is odd phrasing for original research article toois basis of entire fields that fusing pieces of known information into new information possiblebut believe i understand where was wrong. if say, for instance, Patton Oswalt man because appear to be from picture, is not original research because is verifiable in other source, even if source not given, yes? to then apply male adjective to him not out of order then because uses male gender in self-reference. simple question though: would taking these piece of information and adding statement to affect, ""Patton Oswalt identifies as male,"" from inference of things be original research? would be silly to make note of this in article of course, but is only example. believe i understand now where interpretation and implementation of interpretation went wrong. will make all effort to avoid repetition of transgression. thank you, administrator Monty. you are very helpful person.   
"