Because they're speculative and do not adhere to the Manual of Style.
For example: "At the end of the war, like the Taxxons, some Yeerks receive the morphing power to become nothlits, although this is not confirmed afterwards by Marco. It is unknown how many of these Yeerks received such, whether other Yeerks faced trials like Esplin 9466, or what became of the Yeerks who were infesting the thousands and possibly millions of freed Hork-Bajirs and Humans."
Or "*In the introduction, Seerow makes the assumption that the Council of Thirteen is unaware, and therefore not responsible nor supportive of the attack on the Andalite-Yeerk Peace and Cooperation Center. The assumption could then be made that Akdor 1154 and his yeerks fellow wer in fact rebels inside the yeerk population, whou took over with this coup, recreating a new Council afterwards. As Alloran then calls Seerow a fool, it is not known whether or not this is accurate."
We don't add information like this. You were warned once, yet you did it again.
Where is it you "warned" me ? Your savage and repetitive reverts did not include any comment as to any reason until the fifth one, and there's no way I could have guessed that you decided my other edits were also speculative, since you never said it in the revert comments. That's not a way to manage a wiki. You can't accuse me of recidivism if you didn't explain the reason when you reverted my edits. And that's added to the fact that accusing my work to be speculative is questionable, and should be adressed in discussion instead of savage and undocumented reverts.
As for the first part, in several occasions in this wiki is stated that some yeerks were given the ability to morph and become nothlits. And it is legit, as it is the agreement with the Andalites for the end of the war. Even if it's not confirmed in the "one year later" part by Marco when he sums up the changes that happened, it's not contradicted anywhere in the book, so it's a safe assumption to make, and some info rightfully considered as certain in this wiki is based upon much thinner base from the books. So that's not speculative in any way, the marco phrase I added may be unnecessary but it doesn't nullify the fact that it's said in the books.
The second part, about the fate of the remaining yeerks, is (1) not speculative either, as I do not make any theory or assumption as to what their fate may be, and (2) you can search the phrase "fate remains unknown" in this pedia to see that several other pages say the same about other characters, such as Dude (Tobias's cat), Visser Two or the Animorphs for example. The fact that their fate remains unknown is a direct reflection from what's written in the book, it is not speculative and it is legit info as to what becomes of the characters afterwards. The only speculative part about this could be the "thousands and possibly millions" part of the sentence, but the rest of what you've highlighted (and the rest of my edit) are not.
For the third part, there is an excerpt from the books saying the Council didn't know, and it is nowhere said that this specific assumption is false, since alloran's reply is about the whole person and strategy of Seerow. Therefore, stating that Akdor's yeerks are rebels is less a speculation than stating that they were not. Also, the edit you finally made in the VISSER page uses the phrase "Hovever, it is possible...". So it is just as speculative as my original edit, just with less details. Furthermore, such possible stuff are already common in this wiki, such as in The Weakness's "Goofs and Inconsistencies" section.
Finally, what I'm mainly challenging here is the method you use of reverting changes you don't agree with. Even if you were to be right about the Council fact for example, the fact that its relevance in this pedia is questionnable (instead of being obvious as for a pure error, like pure vandalism, or my inserting a quote in a dotted list for example) means you shouldn't have deleted it without prior discussion in the page that's made specifically for it.
"Fate remains unknown" is not the same as "it is unknown."
You're right, I should have stated the reason when I undid the revision. I will keep that in mind for future. The parts in bold from your statement was why the edit was removed, but henceforth I shall only alter those parts rather than ridding the edit as a whole.
Also keep in mind for future edits to use proper capitalization; Yeerks not 'yeerks', "Esplin" not 'esplin', etc.
All right, I'm glad we could reach a proper base of understanding. I'm going to revert (at least some of) my edits with regards to what you just said, especially to my typos which seem quite endemic sometimes. See you in pages' discussions if we disagree on specific edits.