I noted your addition of the words 'fundamentally flawed' describing Mitra's proof, and doubling down on the link to comments by John Baez and Chris Hillman, which is to a newsgroup thread and not a published work. Sounds like you are engaging in an attack, or are attempting to discredit both MECOs and Mitra, using the Wiki article as a platform for your own OR and Synthesis - given it is not an academic or journalistic reference, and it is just your opinion otherwise. Newsgroup items and blogs are just a step above hearsay, in my view, and should not have been included in the first place. No reputable publisher would print such an item! It is way too inflammatory. I'll probably delete that citation, and the 'fundamentally flawed' description.
Since we don't know your real ID, I have to ask; are you sure that your editing on MECOs is not an example of COI? Do you have an agenda of your own, beyond a journalistic representation of the facts? Above I asked "Are you of the opinion, Tim, that it is the duty of Wikipedia editors to trivialize topics of low importance by emphasizing their insignificance?" It appears your actions have answered this question in the affirmative. You are of course free to disagree or defend your actions, but I now label you as an antagonist, not a neutral party looking to highlight the truth. This makes it hard for me to believe in the impartiality of Wikipedia, sours me on the idea of editing the Wiki at all, and convinces me you feel justified to behave like a bully. At least when I was contributing at Azimuth, John Baez was a whole lot more civil than you have been here. JonathanD (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:AGF.TR 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to assume you are acting in good faith. It is apparent you feel that I have not done so, or that my criticisms of excessive use of force demonstrate a lack of good faith on my part. I tire of innuendo easily, and I wish you would refrain from that practice as well. Is a truce or compromise possible? Or will you act adversarially (as it appears you have), rather than aiming for journalistic neutrality? While I appreciate your pointing out rules and guidelines, I am hoping you will follow those rules too. I have not seen clear evidence of your impartiality so far, but perhaps I need to give you a chance. JonathanD (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
How about you understand the idea of an encyclopedia written by volunteers that is very incomplete, and poorly written to such a degree that the ideas are poorly expressed. Did I step on your territory? Pardon me, I'll be sure not to do that again, provided you tell me where your territory lies. When I get a response that is complete, concise and intelligible I will be satisfied and not post such questions. In the meantime such questions might prompt an improvement to the article. By they way, do you know how thuggish you sound? Zedshort (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
You might want to re-examine the types of questions you are asking. Spamming the same question in different variants in different places with little direct relation to specific parts of the article is obnoxious and unconstructive.TR 20:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Always nice to have another opinion and perspective. But I don't answer to you, and I most certainly will not check with you or anyone else before I ask questions. Posting a question and getting wishy-wasey answers is not satisfying to me. Asking the question twice is not "spamming". If you have a problem with my behavior I admonish you to take your complaint to a higher level. Finally, you seriously need to check your tone. Zedshort (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of tone, you might want to consider examining your own.
Please be reminded that talk pages are not for asking general questions about a subject (as you have been doing a lot).TR 21:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Really? I have looked at your contributions and see you have had a great many run-ins with other people. Perhaps you are confused and alarmed by my coming here to talk to you and find that disturbing. My actions and tone are perfectly appropriate. Yes, it is appropriate to ask questions to prompt clarification of an article, and really, rule quoting is the last result of a weak mind. Again, if you have a problem with my behavior take it to a higher level. Time to grow up. Zedshort (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)