Dayaware

Requirement to follow WP:STATUSQUO

Which part of WP:STATUSQUO do you not understand? Unless there is a clear MOS or policy problem then the onus is on the editor who wants to make a disputed change to discuss it. Just because you see no reason for including something doesn't mean that others must agree with you or meekly accept your changes. Afterwriting (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It violates NPOV. It's also non-notable criticism pushing a POV. Un-encyclopedic.

It is not pushing any POV at all and in no way violates NPOV. Whether or not it is notable is another question, which you obviously have a POV about. You might also have a read of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We all have to live with information in articles we would prefer was not included. Afterwriting (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Your wrong but since you are unable to actually defend it we'll get someone else to help you remove it.