". 

 :::Anybody who edits on Wikipedia for any length of time gets used to accusations of bias. Since I started, it's been equally 'obvious' to other editors that I'm a shill for the LASIK industry, a proponent of anti-Catholic conspiracy theories, and all sorts of other things which, alas, are far more exciting than the truth. As long as at least half those guesses at my position are wrong - which, so far, they have been, even though there are some pretty big hints on my userpage and contributions log - I'll take that as evidence that I'm doing a reasonably even-handed job -) 

 :::I'll offer some Wiki-specific advice in return: 

 :::*As per NPOV, specifically NPOV#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, wholesale deletion of a section you dislike is not a good way to make a first impression. Rewrite it to remove the POV without removing the information - the old version may have over-interpreted Jones' remarks, but the issue was certainly newsworthy enough that it should be mentioned here. Or flag the section with an appropriate template and explain concerns on the talk page, if you don't want to rewrite. 

 :::*Speaking of unprofessionality, sniping at other editors (""Not quite sure if you've ever read a real encyclopaedia"") would be it. See Wikipedia: No personal attacks for discussion on why this is a bad thing. The short version is that articles are created by consensus, and consensus is easiest to achieve when people are in a cooperative frame of mind.  

 :::*Sign posts on talk pages; it makes it a lot easier to follow discussions"