I'm glad I waited to respond. My connection to Wiki-Anything is tenuous. I'm sure you know about camels and committees. Given authoritarians' recent open addiction to censorship, which is uppermost in my mind these days, my initial suspicion was a general objection to private book collections. They are fertile grounds for insurrection.
I'm so sorry, and that's so bizarre. A long time ago, years and years, I got into a Wikipedia fight about whether the Simpsons line "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords" was originally from "Empire of the Ants". It isn't! I forced myself and my husband to sit through the entire movie! It's not there. It's just a Simpsons thing. Talk about trivial. At least your correction was about a significant writer and interesting facts. I know how it can make you lie awake sulking for a week or so.
"If something as straightforward as adding a few citations to the Wikipedia entry on Fleming is deleted, what else is deleted anywhere in Wikipedia?"
A long time ago I edited a set of outbound resource links on a page for a particular DSM diagnosis. Mostly I did a fixup on the formatting and chopped out some dead links. Lasted almost two weeks and fixed a problem one site was having. It got nuked after two weeks. I was surprised at that, since the article became more readable, and the page seemed obscure at that point and hadn't had any fixups in a year. I found out why: there was someone squatting on the page and nuking changes. 'Don't mess with my page! MINE MINE MINE!' is the attitude.
(I also fixed a page on a particular obscure star that someone had inserted a fake note about a stellar obscuration of that star signalling the end of the world. Jerk! I think that one got left alone, but who knows?)
I figured this is similar to the kind of thing where you get volunteers working where ever (the library!) having a particular axe to grind in their area, even if, or maybe especially if they're merely wrong about their fixation. (That one particular author who always seems to be mis-shelved to an obscure location, &c.)
elm
although i think that's mostly gone out of fashion
My suspicion is that it was the contributor of this article who called you names and deleted your edit/addition. The administrators of Wikipedia would not behave in this manner. I once corrected an article about quaking aspen trees which stated that the foliage of these trees turns a bright crimson red in autumn. Since I know that aspens turn a golden yellow in the fall (I have a colony of quaking aspens on my own property and have been able to observe them personally for the past half century) I corrected the article, but the original submitter kept deleting my edit. I gave up on it, but nearly a year later my correction had been reinstated. It takes Wikipedia's reviewers quite some time to get around to examining and verifying (or debunking) corrections and additions. I would counsel patience and avoiding contact with the contributor of this article.
I'm glad I waited to respond. My connection to Wiki-Anything is tenuous. I'm sure you know about camels and committees. Given authoritarians' recent open addiction to censorship, which is uppermost in my mind these days, my initial suspicion was a general objection to private book collections. They are fertile grounds for insurrection.
I'm so sorry, and that's so bizarre. A long time ago, years and years, I got into a Wikipedia fight about whether the Simpsons line "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords" was originally from "Empire of the Ants". It isn't! I forced myself and my husband to sit through the entire movie! It's not there. It's just a Simpsons thing. Talk about trivial. At least your correction was about a significant writer and interesting facts. I know how it can make you lie awake sulking for a week or so.
I expect a lot of legitimate contributions to Wikipedia get blocked, for any and no reason at all. Keep us posted on whether you get a response.
"If something as straightforward as adding a few citations to the Wikipedia entry on Fleming is deleted, what else is deleted anywhere in Wikipedia?"
A long time ago I edited a set of outbound resource links on a page for a particular DSM diagnosis. Mostly I did a fixup on the formatting and chopped out some dead links. Lasted almost two weeks and fixed a problem one site was having. It got nuked after two weeks. I was surprised at that, since the article became more readable, and the page seemed obscure at that point and hadn't had any fixups in a year. I found out why: there was someone squatting on the page and nuking changes. 'Don't mess with my page! MINE MINE MINE!' is the attitude.
(I also fixed a page on a particular obscure star that someone had inserted a fake note about a stellar obscuration of that star signalling the end of the world. Jerk! I think that one got left alone, but who knows?)
I figured this is similar to the kind of thing where you get volunteers working where ever (the library!) having a particular axe to grind in their area, even if, or maybe especially if they're merely wrong about their fixation. (That one particular author who always seems to be mis-shelved to an obscure location, &c.)
elm
although i think that's mostly gone out of fashion
My suspicion is that it was the contributor of this article who called you names and deleted your edit/addition. The administrators of Wikipedia would not behave in this manner. I once corrected an article about quaking aspen trees which stated that the foliage of these trees turns a bright crimson red in autumn. Since I know that aspens turn a golden yellow in the fall (I have a colony of quaking aspens on my own property and have been able to observe them personally for the past half century) I corrected the article, but the original submitter kept deleting my edit. I gave up on it, but nearly a year later my correction had been reinstated. It takes Wikipedia's reviewers quite some time to get around to examining and verifying (or debunking) corrections and additions. I would counsel patience and avoiding contact with the contributor of this article.