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. :-( JJ On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
