All could be sourced from my book... which might be the best ever
written on the subject. And the illogicalities and violations of
basic thinking skills that I fixed? You also didn't mention the claims
I removed because they were violated by the accompanying photo.
Whatever else happens, rubbish cannot be left on the page. I will
follow advice and go to wikimedia-1 though.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Thomas Morton
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.
Wikipedia-l mailing list