Re: Sort it

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