User talk:Mileswms

Your recent contributions to Golden ratio
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your contribution to the golden ratio article. Your additions have some fairly serious problems, which I have tried to describe here. I hope you will try to address the problems. Thanks. —Dominus (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am appalled that Wikipedia pretends to give a user the right to edit an article and then eliminates everything contributed without a critique being offered or without giving any explanation for not including the edit contribution. Even the names of the documented references have been eliminated along with the entire edit contribution. There is an allegation that the edit was poorly written without making mention of what it is that is alleged to be poorly written.

What is poorly written is an article that has deliberately chosen the information which it wants to convey and will not allow for legitimate scholarly dialogue in order to completely set forth the facts. How objective is an article which completely ignores the input of an entire Museum devoted the subject matter, that is the Museum of Harmony and the Golden Section? This article on the Golden Ratio is raw disinformation while the effort to prevent editing is naked censorship.

Shouldn't the guidelines dictate that the initial Wikipedia poster, who referred to my posting as Strange recent addition about Pyramids, have identified himself/herself? Who is Dominus and what bearing, as a PERL expert, does he have on the subject matter and the elimination of content. Wikipedia has proven that its public editing process is as flawed and as one-sided and one-dimensional as the articles that it presents. Would those persons responsible, whether a Wikipedia authority or a charlatan user, please make yourselves known and provide an explanation for omitting edit changes and for not accepting creditable reference sources.

Mileswms23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You do have the right to edit an article, and you did edit the article. Another user edited it back, as is their right.  Everyone here has their edits removed sometimes.  If you don't like it, you don't have to contribute.


 * Your contribution is still available in the historical record of the page; use the "page history" link to see the older version.


 * Discussion of the substance of your changes is best carried out at Talk:Golden ratio.


 * —Dominus (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What you have said raises more questions than it answers. I don't have a right to edit the article, but everyone has their edits removed sometime, while another user has the right to relegate my would-be changes to a history of failed attempts? I need not waste time elaborating on what a sham this entire process is. Rest assured that I don't need your invitation in order to arrive at the conclusion that I will forgo any further participation in this mysterious and flawed process which does not accept edit changes, does not provide an explanation of the user's rights or the lack thereof and does not furnish an explanation for action taken or provide details of who is accountable for any such action taken. As for talk discussions, I will not legitimize such an egregious inequity and abuse of the exchange of written information that would be and should be public knowledge. The fact that this article on the Golden Ratio will remain as it is speaks volumes on the honesty, credibility and reliability of the articles being presented by Wikipedia and public participation in the editing of those articles.

MileswmsMileswms (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)