Cleanup This article seems to be suffering from wandering prose self interruptions and poor structure and questionable claims due to careless haphazard edits s recent edits are Previous edits appear to include questionable material inserted with apparently no regard to how it fits into existing prose Mention of Halton Arp and Harold E Puthoff needs to be carefully written to avoid implying that their suggestions are anything but non mainstream Look again I do not see how the edits in question fit the catagory in which you attempt to place them Specifically the creation of 2 internal wiki links to two names that exist elsewhere in wikipedia for the benefit of the reader I suspect you meant to direct your comment toward 62 253 48 43 The edits by 62 253 48 43 also exhibit the problem I mentioned but in my comment I was referring specifically to a sentence which you 203 109 254 40 added An alternative to a particulate flux a wave flux has also been considered Harold E Puthoff has demonstrated that a wave flux proportional to the fourth power of frequency would have no drag I was complaining both about demonstrated which I think should be claimed since Puthoff appears to have little credibility in physics and also where you place this sentence breaking up the connection between two earlier paragraphs Can you please fix these problems Or else leave the current version as it stands I am not objecting to the internal link to Harold E Puthoff but if you keep it please we keep it we should make sure that the latter article states that Puthoff s view rarely represent the mainstream and are regarded with suspicion or ignored by the vast majority of physicists Look again I believe it is 203 109 254 40 you wish to address I leave the sentence untouched Puthoff s view are regarded with suspicion or ignored I will note in passing that he seems to be getting the USA government grants P S Just out of curiousity why do quote me without comment on your user page Are you saying you agree with my pessism about the medium term future of the Wikipedia I am disinclined to explain myself lest I take away the pleasure of the reader of decoding the message for his herself however I will say that I thought the quote worthy of wider circulation so it is happens to be first on my list of such quotes If you feel I am wrong in my judgement please let me know The summary of the above is that C Hillman attributes to me edits I did not make Check the history yourself if you care Hmm I would apologize if I knew that to be the case I tried to check but unfortunately I wasn t very specific in my comment on 4 Oct on which edit I was referring to You Goo did edit this article before my comment several times so if I didn t goof I must have been referring to one of those edits Does it really matter at this late date How about archiving these comments and starting over again The flow of time from the past to the future is an illusion although a persistent one I m baffled that you can t examine my edits of which there are exactly three and convince yourself that your comments can t possibly have been meant to refer to them Hi GoO honestly I have no idea what you mean by writing the summary of the above is that C Hillman attributes to me edits I did not make The above talk page discussion I certainly try my best to attribute edits to the user who wrote them so if you think I goofed could you please quote below the first sentence say from each edit which you did not make using the history page of this talk page link to the actual author using the history page link the my own edit in which I appear to attribute the edit of the article the talk page incorrectly to yourself Fair enough It s not so complicated The procedure you propose is problematic quoting each edit I did not make th