User talk:Untitled5000

I am a scholar involved in the Pollock /fractals/chaos issue. I have edited the page several times, providing detailed explanations and peer-reviewed articles as references. I am confused as to why other users keep deleting my edits. Wikipedia readers are entitled to know the full extent of the scientific debate around Pollock and chaos/fractals. The last user said my references were original research-- Is there something wrong with posting peer-reviewed research articles to a wikipedia page? These are the articles that other media coverage (i.e. the non-original research, e.g. Scientific American articles ) is based on. Untitled5000 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OR and you will have your answer. freshacconci talk to me  02:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring September 2015
3 indiscriminate reverts amounts to edit warring and removal of referenced content amounts to vandalism....Modernist (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

...Modernist (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Jackson Pollock. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me  02:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have replaced all of the peer-reviewed journal referenced with media coverage from reliable sources. By deleting my contributions you are obscuring the facts from Wikipedia readers. I am happy to respect the rules of Wikipedia but you should as well. I will be submitting a complaint to the moderators. Untitled5000 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Freshacconci deleted my contribution claiming that it violated the "original research"restriction on Wikipedia. The restriction says: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The facts I described in my contribution are published in peer-reviewed journals, specifically, Nature, Science, and Physical Review E. The conclusions reached in the articles were vetted by other scientists-- this is the process of peer-review. The information I provided is factual, and supported by published, reliable sources. Thus I do not believe my contribution violated the Original Research restriction. Untitled5000 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)