::::::That's what I've been saying. Half of your edits are great, so long as they don't go too far. Each of those changes (financial repercussions, terrorist/death penalty, etc. are good additions). The problem is that it started from a polemical approach and is now being incorporated into encyclopedic processes. I'm sure you're not done with your work, but I'd still recommend targeted improvements over a great crusade or correction. ::::::Excluding concerns of Europeans, hmm... I can't comment on that with credibility. I'm an American and could be unaware of my bias. We do use primarily English sources which are UK/US heavy. It's possible we're missing
::::::That's what I've been saying. Half of your edits are great, so long as they don't go too far. Each of those changes (financial repercussions, terrorist/death penalty, etc. are good additions). The problem is that it started from a polemical approach and is now being incorporated into encyclopedic processes. I'm sure you're not done with your work, but I'd still recommend targeted improvements over a great crusade or correction. ::::::Excluding concerns of Europeans, hmm... I can't comment on that with credibility. I'm an American and could be unaware of my bias. We do use primarily English sources which are UK/US heavy. It's possible we're missing a