Talk:Philatelic cover

My edits repeatedly reverted.

I have made changes to this article, but my edits are immediatly reverted by the person adding the contested information. I had clearly explained my edits in the summary so that the reason for change was obvious. My edits include...

• Removing comment - It should be noted however that mail sent by stamp collectors is no less a genuine article of postage than is mail sent with no concern of seeing the mailed item again. - which is a purely subjective point of view and is not factual information.
• Removing comment - While many philatelists prefer genuine commercial covers to philatelically contrived covers, philatelic covers may still be acceptable in collections of countries and eras where few other covers exist. Whether the cover was contrived or not, it is still an item of mail sent through the same postal system as other covers from a given country, with a postage stamp(s) and postmark, and is often more historically significant than covers set with no intention of recovery. - also a subjective point of view and not factual information.
• Removing a Wikipedia article used as a reference, and replacing it with a ((fact)) tag.

All these edits have been twice reverted by user Gwillhickers. I have issued a 3RR warning, (which ironically he has also tried to give me) but will wait for consensus from other editors before trying to edit again. There is also the issue of too much detail on Zeppelin mail and First Flight Mail; info that does not specifically address the article, and much of it is personal point of view and original research.--Dmol (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"repeatedly"?? You have made four deletions within a 24 hour period. Also, research is not original. The page is still under development, so it may appear to some individuals that there is a disproportionate amount of material on Zeppelin mail. Further, as is clearly evident in edit history, I have only made two restorations to your edits/deletions, not three. Please do not abuse warning tags in the future. Gwillhickers 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the statement "mail sent by stamp collectors is no less a genuine article of postage than is mail sent with no concern of seeing the mailed item again", is a fact. The statement "While many philatelists prefer genuine commercial covers to philatelically contrived covers..." is another fact, and if you think it needs a cite, than I will provide one. Thank you for your concern. Gwillhickers 21:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)