Interesting factoid:

One of the measurements in the early (or early-mid?) 1900's came out as an even hundred, something like 14,400, but they didn't think people would believe that was the actual measurement so they added or subtracted a few feet so it looked better.

Source: World Book encyclopedias printed sometime in the early 70's

> Editors of the page appear to be non-experts in the field and biased against me personally for unknown reasons.

They are likely non-experts in measuring mountains, but may be experts in updating wikipedia.

While it's always possible they hold some unreasonable grudge, it's also possible this new data hasn't yet met the criteria wikipedia has.

This data is so new, you might just want to wait a while (especially before throwing personal accusations). Rainier will still be there.

"Editors of the [Wikipedia] page appear to be non-experts in the field and biased against me personally for unknown reasons... It is unfortunate that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information."

No, you cannot be trusted over the USGS (US Geological Survey). This is an important thing to understand when editing Wikipedia. It's not enough to be an expert in the field (other editors have no idea what your experience is). Peer-reviewed, published data from an official source is always going to be more trusted than data in a blog post.