" 

 As usual everything you're saying is nonsense: 

 *You say, You are citing yourself as a source, including a map which is listed as ""own work"" and has no reliable sources for that information. As always you just make shit up. The footnote to the Cavendish map's caption  reads, ""See Macmillan (2000) (pp.25-7) and Macmillan (PGIP) (page A) for the steps in setting a blast and the location and circumstances of the accident"", and this is the source of the map's annotations. Its description at commons is ""own work... EEng"" because work derived from a PD work is, indeed, ""own work"" for copyright purposes. 
 :This has all been explained to you at least twice, and probably more times than that. First I explained (#CG_mixed_up_about_map1) that editors are allowed to create and annotate maps based on reliable sources, citing WP:OI. Then another editor pointed out (CG_mixed_up_about_map2 that you were the one that removed the ref to the source on which the map is based, after which you complained there was no source! And here you are again bleating the same ignorant complaints. WP:ICANTHEARYOU 

 *You say, The COIN discussion showed that several editors including: John, Binksternet and Tryptofish, agreed. It doesn't matter what editors X or Y said in the discussion. The discussion ended with no determination of COI, and it was Tryptofish (whom you now cite for support!) who initiated removal of the COI tag. That removal was disussed and agreed upon by several editors , you gave no reason why removal shouldn't happen, and now a month later you're editwarring to re-add this tag. 

 *You say, You've previously given yourself increased prominence with all the Macmillan [references] The reason Macmillan's work (including, incidentlally, the one substantial, and one minor, piece I coauthored with him) are cited so much is that along with Barker, his work is the only reliable fact source on Gage. (Ratiu, Van Horn, and Tyler & Tyler are reliable on the special topic of the brain damage.) As one editor put it  
 ::The most pertinent argument relating to COI was the alleged overrepresentation of MacMillan in the article sources. As has been shown here and at the COI noticeboard, while the Gage case has been referenced in a vast amount of sources, the overwhelming majority of these instances are largely superficial, derivative and quite distant from the actual primary sources. Most reviews in medical history journals that I have read, while not uncritical of MacMillan, have remarked on the (almost pathological) comprehensiveness of his treatment and there have been no serious objections raised to his overall interpretation of the Gage case and its significance. His thesis has received no substantial rebuttal, it is the most current treatment and, absent EEng from this article, I would still argue that it should be the principal source used to create content for this article. 
 :Numerous academic sources which are (or were  depending on whether you ripped them out last month) referenced in the article cite Macmillan as the authoratative source to the exlcusion of others and you are in no position to second-guess that judgment. 

 :You keep saying that other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over like a broken record, but you've had two months to add such sources and you've done absolutely nothing. The only source you've even proposed is Fleischman, but as discussed ad nauseum F. is aimed at grades 4-6 and under no circumstances can be used as a fact source. 

 :The documentation for template:COI says, ""Like the other neutrality-related tags, this tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found."" You've had two months to do what you want to ""fix"" this ""problem"" and no one's stopped you. And now you say I'm supposed to have fixed these nonexistent problems! What fucking chutzpah. 

 The reason you've shown up here after a month of no interest at all is that you're angry at me about this [https://en.wikipedia.org?oldid=593532580#Personal_attack.3F_You_decide.21_.5BSection_heading_not_supplied_by_Ch