Need Help on the CCSVI wikipedia page (urgent!)
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:39 pm
Hello,
I need your help on the CCSVI Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_ce ... ufficiency
Is there anyone who can 'defend' this page against persons who want to delete information on this page. All things went okay, until 25th of November. The person WLU started to delete most of it. His remark was:
"if it is this new we shouldn't be emphasizing it so much; general changes, citation templates, removing problematic, way too much promotion of Zamboni for my taste"
I reverted the information twice already. But I'm from the Netherlands, so please get some English speaking people involved which can keep the information up to date.
WLU made another comment:
"CCSVI itself is a very novel diagnosis. Before a lengthy article can be written, it should be established that it is well-accepted, or at least has significant minority acceptance. Essentially, until that can be demonstrated, the article should remain quite short and be clearly indicated as prospective and novel. The problem with novel hypotheses is of course, the dearth of reliable sources."
He deleted more than half of it for the second time.
So, please get some people involved on this Wikipedia page, having a lot of experience in Wikipedia editing.
Thanks!!
I need your help on the CCSVI Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_ce ... ufficiency
Is there anyone who can 'defend' this page against persons who want to delete information on this page. All things went okay, until 25th of November. The person WLU started to delete most of it. His remark was:
"if it is this new we shouldn't be emphasizing it so much; general changes, citation templates, removing problematic, way too much promotion of Zamboni for my taste"
I reverted the information twice already. But I'm from the Netherlands, so please get some English speaking people involved which can keep the information up to date.
WLU made another comment:
"CCSVI itself is a very novel diagnosis. Before a lengthy article can be written, it should be established that it is well-accepted, or at least has significant minority acceptance. Essentially, until that can be demonstrated, the article should remain quite short and be clearly indicated as prospective and novel. The problem with novel hypotheses is of course, the dearth of reliable sources."
He deleted more than half of it for the second time.
So, please get some people involved on this Wikipedia page, having a lot of experience in Wikipedia editing.
Thanks!!