it's not that nefarious his deletion started out as rewordings you can read the article history for the sequence i am responsible for some of the strange indentation on the talk page section i captured his diffs from the outset and attempted to reason with q diff by diff eventually i attempted to recast his edits into inline tags i annotated the disputed words such as 'must' current article versus 'should' q g s rewording etc so you can see qs views started out reasonably as q proceeded down the article he started deleting entire paragraphs etc so we stepped in per wp brd that got his attention q decorated the article with top level tags we started discussion change by change q is fundamentally a well read humanist he has a theory of science based on his voluminous reading and training in history so we have a difference in perspective which i would like to explore with q and incorporate in the article i attempted to get him to formulate his pov but q's responses became attacks so i called time out to me this proves q is well meaning but q also has strong opinions which i am attempting to draw out somehow without sacrificing the article the article remained tagged for over a month the article is basically back to the jan state but it also includes tetrast's latest improvements qs reasoning boils down to 'there was science thousands of years ago therefore there was scientific method thousands of years ago' which does not follow but we were never able to draw that out of him in so many words q is also capable of categorical statements but does not follow up with sufficient detail to be convincing he just got frustrated unfortunately i we very much appreciate your interest talk contribs