Please take a look at an example about "collaborative"
The page is a disambiguation page. So it's not meant for contents, but it is simply a list of articles and a short description of such articles. You are free to add your content to the articles linked therein. Or start an article/stub on en:Whole number (perspectives of number theorists) and add a link to it in the en:Whole number article.
<Sigh> . It seems the shades of cluselessness in such a simple case are endless and boundless. So you are saying that the "disambiguationness" of the page is something sacred, ethernal, inviolate, immutable? And I cannot make it into a regular article? And you are free to delete anything from it while plainly refusing to discuss the new content? That new content is so unimportant that it may be routinely deleted in favor of some formality? Even overlooking the fact that this is a disambiguation page from hell.
That's exactly what I am talking here about: the likes of you have made wikipedia into a shooter game, not a repository of knowledge.
As for your belated advice, yes, I did think about this, but the more I read what's going on, the less I want to something in wikipedia. And I am hanging onto this thread out of mere curiosity: who will be the first reasonable person to find an acceptable solution to the issue? Hereby I solemnly declare that I will give this person $50. Furthermore, if I see three different reasonable solutions, I will donate Wikipedia $200. And I challenge you to match my pledge. May be wikipedia is not to rotting, after all.
You are missing the point of Wikipedia:
- The First law of Wikipedia: on average, of those who edit a page, more than half will not have read the page he is editing.
- The Second Law of Wikipedia: on average, of those who edit a page, more than 80% (90%?) will not know anything about the topic of the page whatsoever.
Your "The real problem is lost respect to new knowledge;" is off: "new" has nothing to do with it. The Wikipedia mythos is of the earnest person who wants to edit, and starts to read up on a topic, in books, websites, or databases, and then to enthousiastically produce text. Each user is encouraged to grow to his level of incompetence (see here). Quality is not a concern, it will magically arise in good time, as a result of long collaboration.
What you are trying to do is contribute actual information to an encyclopedia. All wrong; that is not how it works: it is all about playing the Wikipedia game. It is not actually forbidden to have knowledge of the topic you write about, but you are not supposed to; at least be apologetic about it. Assume protective coloration.
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.