Please take a look at an example about "collaborative"
My suggestion was that there are ways to publish his content on Wikipedia, just not on that specific page. If he would seek a compromise solution, he could reach what he wants.
I have to disagree with your suggestion. My point was that a compromise requires work from both sides. As I wrote, I asked several times in the article talk page what is wrong with my addition referenced from solid books. And as I explained, nobody bothered to discuss the content. How you can talk about "compromise"? How can I amend my suggestion if nobody explained what was wrong in my text?
The issue at hand was not some fringe science or political wrangle. There are several people in this talk page which seem to complain about tough penetration in these subjects. Mine is totally different. I was not trying to push some agenda. I merely added two simple statements, from books, to a mathematical subject.
And the fact that they were deleted in favor of some formality baffles me. Just as it baffles me that nobody put forth any ways to "seek compromise solution", as you suggest, neither in this forum, nor in the article in question.
Now I may conclude that the reason of the complained low retention rate of new editors is that because they are in their own, a nuisance to the oldtimers. If they are lucky not to be punched in their nose in the first month, then they grow. Otherwise; goodbye.