4.240.90.59

I removed your posting because VfU is for the undeletion of articles that have been deleted, not the removal of specific text from articles. There is no organized process to deal with that—it's instead up to editors to come to group consensus as to what should or should not be in the content of an article, through colaborative editing and comments. If you think something was improperly edited out, the solution is to either post a message on the article's talk page, or on the talk page of the user who edited out your addition.

I've included the text of your original posting below. Postdlf 19:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is unfamiliar for me, hope I'm doing it right. A few days ago, I found that a multidisciplinary presentation I placed on the web for public access was listed on a Wikipedia's fractals page, by someone who is an active contributor to the page. Then I learned about Wikipedia, that articles can be added at will, to be evaluated by Wikipedia users as to their worthiness. The website address that was deleted (from the Grand Canyon page) is: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/fractals/grandcanyon/. This is not my website, it is a huge math/physics/astronomy site out of Australia, and we placed the presentation there for visibility purposes. I am thrilled that it was placed and has lasted on the fractals page. I don't know Solkoll, but whoever you are, thank you for putting it up, and to others for letting it stay.  :-)

I personally placed it on the Grand Canyon page, knowing it had a poor chance of lasting, because no matter how appropriate and relevant it is to the Canyon (and it IS appropriate and relevant, not "nonsense" as suggested by the person who removed it), it is surely obvious that behind it is an agenda with mathematics.  :-) I make no apologies for this, and I was very open about this when contacting the Division of Interpretation and Resource Education at the Grand Canyon National Park Service in February 2004 about giving such a presentation to their visitors.

The point I want to make, and here is my complaint, is the person who deleted this did it in a very high-handed manner and I feel certain could not have even looked at the presentation. I know this because 1) of what he said, that it was not about the Canyon (when the largest and first section is about the walls of the Canyon and looking for very clear patterns in the walls and rim), and 2) he deleted it instantly after I put it up without enough time to download and look at it. Directly below is his comment verbatim, and my rebuttal follows.

"Brian0918 m link claims to explain fractals in the grand canyon, but the examples are: fractals in clouds above the grand canyon, in lightning that strikes it, in snow that falls in it. nonsense = revert)"

From the beginning, this presentation was put together with the input of the GCNPS and went through multiple stages of review and change. The criteria used, provided by the GCNPS is from their document titled "Primary Interpretative Themes". This is the criteria it had to meet to be presentable to park visitors, they are obligated to strictly follow this criteria. After many months and a series of reviews and changes, I presented it at the Canyon, but that was the smaller part of the plan, the bigger plan was always to put it on the web and make it accessible to individuals and teachers. Why? Because math is unpopular with the general public, and I am trying to put things "out there" that will challenge those notions gently and intrinsically. It is true that I have a math agenda, but this went through not only a lot of academic review, I had to walk through fire with the GCNPS. Two big sections literally address the Canyon itself, one is on the Canyon walls/Rim, and the other is on the Canyon boundaries. The example sections your user complained about were clouds, lightning, snow. The clouds section is miniscule, 2 images, there is one image for lightning, and I actually wanted to remove the snow section but the Division of Interpretation and Resource Education wanted it to stay in. One of the things they liked about the presentation is that it touches on so many aspects of the Canyon. When I finally gave it at the park, several rangers were there and were very excited and found multiple connections with their own experiences. Their connections are going to be incorporated, mostly into the boundaries section, probably in the fall months based on conversations with the Division of Interpretation and Resource Education in a informal meeting that is taking place in Tempe on June 23rd, a few days away. A section on the river will also be added.

Now, I understand that my presentation may not be appropriate for your Grand Canyon page, but that decision should NOT be made in an on-the-spot judgment call that did not even include an accurate assessment of the material. Nonsense? I think not. And truly, I didn't put the presentation up to try to promote myself. Although I have a website, and it is on my website, I placed the link to the Australian website listed above. Grand Canyon is a topic of world interest. I'm trying to make romantic math-in-nature connections, to woo the general public to see math in the beauty of the nature around them, whether it is in the Grand Canyon or rocks and trees in their backyards. If you don't want it on your Grand Canyon page, that is fine, it was the summary dismissal that was not an accurate reflection of the presentation that I am answering, and challenging. If it isn't right for your page, then make that decision based on good reasons and accurate assessments. Hopefully, someone will take the time to actually look at the presentation.