We are defined by what we do. Wikipedia - the world's most reliably unreliable encyclopedia - is defined as such by what its long term prolific editors do. As are they.
SOME THINGS IN THE PAST CAN'T BE TAMED
SOME THINGS IN THE PAST CAN'T BE TAMED
Unable to refute newly discovered disconfirming facts for their Darwin worship beliefs, see how silly contorting #Wikipedia editors pour fuel on a Wikipage bonfire of their dashed dreams pretending a peer reviewed journal article on Darwin's plagiarism & lies is not peer reviewed pic.twitter.com/2BFB2u0Pwq— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) February 3, 2018
Outside the contorted newspeak nonsense of the weird cult of Wikipedia editors, back in the real world, my British Society of Criminology journal article was thoroughly peer reviewed by two anonymous experts in the field, and I had to edit and re-submit it accordingly. In typical neerdowell pseudo scholar style, these weird cultists refuse to publish the independently verifiable proof that it was peer reviewed. The reason they are doing this appears to be simply because they cannot bear the independently verifiable newly discovered facts in it that show Charles Darwin was a serial lying plagiariser of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior-published conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Unable to deal with those facts and more besides they are desperately writing deliberate and malevolent falsehoods (archived here) to deny they are in a most highly respected peer reviewed scholarly journal.
Such deliberate and dishonest malevolent and malicious falsehood spreading and fact denial behaviour is not at all untypical behaviour among prolific Wikipedia editors of long standing
This is exactly why, worldwide, all university students are forbidden from citing Wikipedia unless they are referencing its editors academic wrongdoing and persistently reliable inaccuracy. Here is the fact based independently verifiable proof that the article in question - The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery (the article is here) - was peer reviewed (that proof is here). This published proof, freely available in the public domain, is just one among a multitude of verifiable facts prolific Wikipedia editors of long standing are desperately denying in the last throes of their credulous Darwin worshipping unscholarly and unscientific fact denial behaviour http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume-14/ cult.
Here is the editor's revisions page of the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia where these facts are being denied with malevolent and malicious falsehoods https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Matthew&action=history (archived here because the most senior of Wikipedia editors have been deleting the entire history (verifiable evidence here in their own published words) of what the one prolific Wikipedia editor of long standing, he who has been prolifically editing Wikipedia's page about me - the very same one who sent me the malicious and malevolent obscene misogynist tweet below - has published in one of their weird cultish silly Billy "chat rooms" in the public domain. Of course, what these poor fools don't realise is that on the Internet "delete never means delete". The defamatory published statements, and evidence of Wikipedia's guilt in deleting the lot, have all been archived for forthcoming action.
More independently verifiable proof from the publication record of malicious and malevolent behaviour of Wikipedia editors, and of published Wikipedia falsehoods, are available in this portable pdf file. And further details can be found on the relevant page on Patrick Matthew.com . Why are these fact deniers so desperately exposing their dishonesty? Just Google "Darwin Science Fraud" - what is your first hit? Here is mine at the time of writing.
+@Dysology Look here you supercilious cunt, I told you who I was immediately. Stuff ur haughty "Wasn't that hard for you was it?" up ur arse— Jafe (@JFDerry) February 1, 2016
Francis Bacon nailing #ConfirmationBias in 1620! Via https://t.co/AbHCG7FzXQ #psychology pic.twitter.com/aYCx3Dh4RH— David Webb (@psych101) February 3, 2018
+Bonfire of the Insanities in the last bastions of Darwin worship on Wikipediahttps://t.co/2xpwKujLUl pic.twitter.com/GN8u5w3sQD— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) February 3, 2018
+Check out this quote. Very apt for fact denial editors of #WikiMalFarm— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) February 3, 2018
"“I cannot go back. If I slipped I might ... https://t.co/30lLZvUhuG
+I reviewed it. Creationists, like Wikiedia Editors, despise me because Matthew the originator of evolution by natural selection mocked God in a way Darwin never (who in fact wrote that "the Creator" set it up in nature) I prov Darwin stole it from Matthew: https://t.co/PG39CBw32V— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 3, 2018
+#WikiMalFarm .... definitely a MalEncyclopedia run by pseudoscholrly fact deniers called "Wikipedia Editors" https://t.co/UKVxfxJGR3 pic.twitter.com/kIPhdHc2Yw— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 3, 2018
+Yes. I would certainly put Wikipedia Editors of the Patrick Matthew page and their Mike Sutton page in the same "state of denial" lying malicious falsehood authors category as Creationists - massively intellectually challenged neerdowell fools - the lot of them.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 3, 2018
+He is probably a wikipedia editor then— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 3, 2018
+You should not deny facts to make history your pet— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) February 3, 2018
"That is what history is, the teaching and telling of it. It ... https://t.co/mnflweCptr