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. Tom _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
