User talk:RickLive

Your edits
It's been suggested to me that all you are doing is what may be seen as promoting a single article, although I see it's actually a set. It's also possible that you have a WP:Conflict of interest in which case you really should be making suggestions on article talk pages. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The PLOS ONE paper you mention needs no promoting. It has been viewed over 11 000 times in less than two months. News about it have been published, e.g. in Huffington Post, Daily Mail, The Times, ... Wikipedia promotion is unnecessary.

Wikipedia encourages bold editing. The set of three papers have been published in high ranking peer reviewed journals. astrolynx commented in "Algol: Revision history" (17:16, 16 January 2016) that "no one else has confirmed this conjecture". Liptsophian in "Variable star: Revision history" (19:57, 30 December 2015‎) commented "Highly speculative works all from the same author". Do the editors, referees or editorial boards of these three journals really accept publication of "conjectures" or "highly speculative" research? The research of the authors of these papers has gone through a strict peer review process. After all that, some anonymous persons reject these results as "conjectures" and "speculations". Where do these high priests of science get their authority? The correct answer is: they do not possess any such authority. It is plain evident that they have something personal against the authors of these three papers. Since 2008 there has not been a single peer reviewed paper, where the findings presented in these three papers have been questioned. If such research will be published, I volunteer to add it to Wikipedia. In these particular cases, Wikipedia discourages its editors to be meek.

The discovery of Algol, its period and its connection to numerous ancient egyptian deities is a totally new finding. If Khruner in "Egyptian astronomy: Revision history" (15:52, 15 January 2016‎) thinks that this is an irrelevant ancient egyptian astronomical finding, it is OK with me. The most disturbing rejection note was made in the case of Sakhmet: "never heard about this journal" (i.e. PLOS ONE). The new content was removed without checking the journal. i.e. without ever even reading the peer reviewed paper!

I am sorry if I have unknowingly violated some Wikipedia code. Just inform me, if there is some other proper way to proceed. My goal is to improve the content of Wikipedia. I think that the comments like those made by astrolynx and Liptsophian do not serve that goal. Maybe I just take break in this messy wikipedia business.