I had a look through the added material. It seemed to lack a lot of
sourcing and didn't really fit the tone of a summarising article. Sadly,
I'd have to say its removal (pending discussion) was the right decision.
I can absolutely appreciate the frustration of contributing to a field
where publishing new or radical theories is met with huge resistance. But
on the other hand Wikipedia is not really a place to right those wrongs
(for what I hope is obvious reasons :)).
There's really no good answer here: Wikipedia blurs the line between
academic research and encyclopaedic coverage, to the extent that it is
tempting to bring new material directly to Wikipedia.